Protecting Women From Workplace Sexual Harassment Is A Public Duty; Writ Maintainable : Madras High Court Tells Railway Employees Co-Op Credit Society
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Madras Single Bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy has held that writ petitions seeking protection of women employees from sexual harassment at the workplace are maintainable against the Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society, treating such protection as a public duty. The court examined a woman employee’s complaint of sexual harassment by a senior official and her allegation that the society did not take appropriate action, while pursuing disciplinary proceedings against her. Upholding the National Commission for Women findings, the court rejected the society’s challenge, sustained directions on subsistence allowance, and directed that the disciplinary charges be treated as lapsed, the suspension period be treated as duty, and arrears and retiral benefits be paid with interest within a fixed time.
The proceedings arose from multiple writ petitions filed by the Railway Employees’ Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. and its employee concerning allegations of sexual harassment, disciplinary proceedings, and subsistence allowance. The employee, appointed in 1994, alleged sexual harassment at the workplace by a superior officer and complained to various authorities including the National Commission for Women.
The Management constituted internal enquiry committees, which ultimately reported that the allegations were not substantiated. Meanwhile, several charge memoranda were issued to the employee between 2003 and 2004 alleging misconduct relating to verbal abuse, dereliction of duty, failure to reconcile ledgers, and creation of false entries.
The employee challenged these proceedings as victimisation arising from her harassment complaint. Orders were also passed by authorities under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 directing payment of subsistence allowance. Upon attaining superannuation on 31.05.2023, the employee sought retiral benefits contending that no rule permitted continuation of disciplinary proceedings post-retirement. The Management contested maintainability and defended the disciplinary action.
On maintainability, the Court observed that “A combined reading of the Judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the employee would also reinforce that the matter relating to prevention of sexual harassment at workplace and taking action in respect thereof and grant of protection for women employees at the workplace would be in the realm of public duty and as such I hold that the Writ Petitions are maintainable.”
Regarding sexual harassment, the Court found that the Chairman treated the complaint casually and recorded that “it exhibited a conduct where the Management takes note of a very serious complaint in a very casual manner.” After examining the findings of the National Commission for Women, the Court held that “there was sexual harassment of the employee by the said Nagakesari at workplace.” It further recorded that “she had been deprived of her fundamental rights as a woman to have a safe workplace” and that “the employer has not followed the guidelines as set out in Vishaka’s case.”
On the disciplinary proceedings, the Court stated that “all the charge memoranda are nothing but a fall out of the sexual harassment complaint given by the employee.” It observed that the sequence of charge memoranda reflected “fishing expeditions and trap laying exercises that are conducted by the Management.”
Concerning continuation of proceedings after superannuation, the Court noted that “admittedly, there is no enabling provision… to continue the disciplinary enquiry, after cessation of the employer–employee relationship.” It held that “disciplinary enquiry cannot be continued after the cessation of employer–employee relationship.” Considering the facts, the Court stated that “this is not a fit case where… the Management should be permitted to continue the enquiry.” Accordingly, it recorded that “no further proceedings can be undertaken with reference to the charge memoranda and they have to be treated as lapsed.”
The Court held that “the employee / petitioner in W.P.No.3109 of 2025 suffered sexual harassment and the Management failed to take appropriate action at all stages and the disciplinary proceedings against the employee are victimization and fall out of the employee chosen to question the sexual harassment before all the authorities and pursue the same aggressively.”
“The disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the four charge memoranda bearing reference No.2/2003 dated 06.06.2003, No.3/2003 dated 23.06.2003, No.4/2003 dated 15.07/2003 and No.1/2004 dated 12.03.2004 shall be deemed to have been lapsed and no further orders can be passed.”
Also Read: Madras High Court Upholds Pastor’s Conviction For Sexually Assaulting Disabled Minor
The Court directed that “the employee will be deemed to have been retired from service, with effect from her date of superannuation i.e., on 31.05.2023 and all the retirement benefits shall be paid to the employee, with further interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from 31.05.2023 till the date of payment. The amount shall be disbursed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the website uploaded copy of this order, without waiting for the certified copy.”
“The employee will be entitled to 60 % of the back wages all through and the subsistence allowance if any already paid shall be adjusted and the balance shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the website uploaded copy of this order, without waiting for the certified copy. If the amounts are not paid within the above said time period, thereafter, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from today.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. G. Anand Gopalan for Mr. A. Jenasenan; Ms. D. Nagasaila
For the Respondents: Mr. A. M. Ayyadurai, Government Advocate; Mr. G. Venkatesan, CGSC; Mr. D. Dorairajan; Mr. V. Karthikeyan; Ms. D. Nagasaila
Case Title: The Railway Employees’ Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. & Anr. vs D. Srilatha & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: MHC:518
Case Number: Writ Petition Nos.17338 of 2014, 3109 of 2025, 37290 of 2004 and 3071 of 2005
Bench: Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
