The Supreme Court docket examined the statutory framework of the POSH Act intimately and held that the phrase “the place the respondent is an worker” in Part 11 will not be a jurisdictional limitation however a procedural path requiring the ICC to use the service guidelines relevant to the accused individual.
The Court docket mentioned that tying jurisdiction to the accused officer’s office would impose unreasonable hurdles on an aggrieved lady and would defeat the very objective of the Act.
“A slim interpretation of provisions of the POSH Act, to be able to maintain that solely the ICC of the office of the ‘respondent’ has jurisdiction 36to inquire into complaints in opposition to him, no matter the place the office of the aggrieved lady is or the place the alleged act of sexual harassment happened, would undermine the POSH Act’s remedial social welfare intent since it could create vital sensible hurdles for the aggrieved lady.” the Bench mentioned.
The Court docket additionally emphasised that the POSH Act provides a intentionally extensive definition to “office”, together with anywhere visited in the midst of employment. It mentioned that the girl’s proper to strategy the ICC at her office can’t be diluted just because the accused officer works elsewhere.
“Whereas the ICC constituted on the office of the aggrieved lady or the employer could not have the authority to impose a penalty / punishment on the ‘respondent’ as a consequence of the proceedings beneath the POSH Act, its findings can actually be acted upon by the employer of the ‘respondent’,” the Court docket famous.
Leave a Reply