Pranav B Prem

The Madras High Court recently held that any unwelcome behaviour in the workplace that adversely affects women would constitute "sexual harassment" under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (the PoSH Act), irrespective of the perpetrator’s intent. This significant ruling was delivered by Justice R.N. Manjula, emphasizing that the perception of the victim takes precedence over the intention of the accused.

Case Background

The case arose from a 2017 complaint against N. Parsarathy, a Service Delivery Manager at HCL Technologies, who was accused of multiple instances of sexual harassment. The company’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), constituted under the PoSH Act, found Parsarathy guilty of misconduct. The allegations included:

1. Unwelcome physical contact, including hovering close to a female employee without a work-related reason.

2. Asking inappropriate personal questions, such as inquiring about a woman’s menstrual cycles.

3. Creating a hostile work environment through unprofessional and inappropriate behaviour, such as asking a female employee for her physical measurements and touching her shoulders inappropriately.

The ICC recommended that Parsarathy be stripped of his supervisory role, confined to assignments within India, and denied pay raises or other benefits for two years. These measures were aimed at ensuring a safe workplace for female employees.

Labour Court’s Decision

Parsarathy challenged the ICC’s findings before the Principal Labour Court in Chennai, claiming violations of natural justice. He argued that the ICC’s inquiry lacked fairness due to non-disclosure of CCTV footage and the absence of cross-examination opportunities. The Labour Court set aside the ICC’s findings in 2019, reasoning that procedural lapses undermined the inquiry. HCL Technologies challenged the Labour Court’s decision in the Madras High Court. Justice Manjula, after reviewing the case, quashed the Labour Court’s order and reinstated the ICC’s recommendations.

Key Observations by the High Court

1. Focus on Victim’s Perception: Justice Manjula highlighted that under the PoSH Act, the emphasis is on the act of harassment rather than the perpetrator’s intention. The judgment noted: “If something is not received well and it is inappropriate and felt as an unwelcome behaviour affecting the other sex namely the women, no doubt it would fall under the definition of ‘sexual harassment.’”

2. Relevance of Decency: The Court clarified: “While speaking about decency, it is not the decency which the respondent thinks within himself, but how he makes the other gender to feel about his actions.”

3. Role of ICC as a Quasi-Judicial Authority: The Court underscored that the ICC’s role is akin to a quasi-judicial authority and its findings should be interfered with only in cases of procedural lapses or manifest injustice. The judgment stated, “Strict rules of evidence have no application to the type of inquiry that is being made by the ICC on the charges of sexual harassment against the women employees.”

4. Context-Sensitive Inquiry: Addressing procedural concerns, the Court observed, “The privacy, secrecy, and safety of the victims also need to be given priority, and hence the fairness formula to be adopted during such inquiry can be flexible and suiting to the nature of the complaint.”

5. Standard of Reasonableness: Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Joseph Oncale vs. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., the High Court emphasized that the standard of reasonableness in such cases should be that of a “reasonable woman” rather than a “reasonable man.”

Criticism of Labour Court’s Approach

The High Court found that the Labour Court had failed to appreciate the nuances of workplace harassment. It noted that the Labour Court’s insistence on rigid procedural norms, such as the non-availability of CCTV footage, ignored the holistic evidence and testimonies provided by the complainants. The judgment stated, “The Labour Court ought not to have given much significance to the non-furnishing of CCTV footage to the respondent.” Allowing the writ petition filed by HCL Technologies, the High Court quashed the Labour Court’s order, upheld the ICC’s findings, and reinstated its recommendations. Justice Manjula concluded that the ICC had conducted a fair and sensitive inquiry, balancing the rights of both the complainants and the respondent.

Cause Title: HCL Technologies Ltd. vs. N.Parsarathy

Case No: W.P. No.5643 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.6594 of 2020 & 25713 of 2021

Date: January-22-2025

Bench: Justice R.N. Manjula

[Read/Download order]