L.S.SIBU VS AIR INDIA, LIMITED AND OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4001 of 2016 (A)
INTRODUCTION
The Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was intended to be established in every company as part of the Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act, 2013). Under the POSH Act 2013, the ICC is tasked with serving as a watchdog to guarantee that workplaces are safe for women.
The ICC's investigation process must always adhere to the Principles of Natural Justice. The conclusions arrived at by the ICC and the reports prepared thereof may become unacceptable if it does not adhere to the Principles of Natural Justice. The members of the ICC must be impartial and free from improper influence. The ICC shall ensure, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, that the complainant is given a fair chance to respond to the allegations brought against them while preserving a respectful environment.
In this case, the Kerala High Court decided whether the report produced by Internal Complaints Committee, after the conclusion of the investigation, is preliminary or conclusive.
FACTS
A complaint was made against the Petitioner (L.S. Sibu), an employee of Air India by 17 female employees, alleging sexual harassment. The petitioner questions the legitimacy of the investigation report on the grounds that it does not follow the rules of natural justice. The petitioner argued that the Committee reached a decision without allowing him a fair chance to cross-examine the complainants and contest the case's factual findings. Respondents the female employees argued that the allegations of the petitioner’s involvement in sexual harassment were a preliminary investigation. The disciplinary action would be taken as a result of the ICC report.
OBSERVATION OF THE COURT
The court referred to the case of Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India, in which it was decided that the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) had the status of an inquiry committee for purposes of taking disciplinary action in accordance with service regulations. Due to this circumstance, the ICC has the authority to decide how much compensation the aggrieved woman must receive. As a result, the employer will decide whether to take further action in compliance with service regulations or not based on the ICC report. The recommendation is subject to an appeal under the law. Therefore, until it is modified in an appeal, the ICC's fact-finding investigation is conclusive.
The employer cannot change it in a subsequent action. A biased comment should never be used against a person without first allowing him the chance to respond and refute it, according to the fundamental principles of natural justice. In cases of sexual harassment, the victim may lack the willingness to fully disclose all that occurred to her at work. Such victims' confidentiality and privacy must also be respected. It should be emphasized that verbal cross-examination is not the only way to dispute or refute any testimony provided by the victim.
The Committee may take alternative steps to ensure that the witness's testimony is rectified by the offender in any other way if it believes that the aggrieved is weak and cannot survive any cross-examination. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the fair opportunity in the context of a culture that allows for the open voicing of complaints. The offender may be allowed to conduct verbal cross-examination of such witnesses if the Committee believes that the witness or plaintiff may testify freely and fearlessly.
HELD
According to Section 13(3),additionally, it was decided that the ICC should offer the offender a fair chance to respond to the accusations made against him and that the investigation should be conducted in accordance with Principles of Natural Justice.
Furthermore, under Section 15, the ICC may stipulate that the offender must compensate the affected party. The Court came to the conclusion that this establishes that the inquiry report is final unless challenged and cannot be changed later by the employer through follow-up action under Section 13 and recognized the appellate procedure available under Section 18.
Comments