Delhi High Court holds local committee alone has jurisdiction over complaints against “employer” under POSH Act

In X v. Akademi & Ors. (2025 DHC 7501), dated 28 August 2025 the Delhi High Court clarified that where a sexual harassment complaint is made against an individual who qualifies as “employer” under Section 2(g) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”), jurisdiction lies with the Local Committee (“LC”) and not with the organisation’s Internal Committee (“IC”). The case involved a woman appointed on probation at Akademi, alleging sexual harassment by the institution’s Secretary. The Secretary was held to be an “employer” under Section 2(g), including via its clause expanding “employer” to persons entrusted with management, supervision, control, policy implementation, even if not formally listed.

The High Court observed that where an “employer” is implicated, the complaint cannot remain before the IC; instead, the LC is the appropriate forum. The Court found that Akademi’s IC lacked jurisdiction over the allegations against its Secretary. It also found the petitioner’s termination during the pendency of proceedings to be mala fide and in violation of natural justice. The Court quashed the termination order, restored the petitioner to her position, and directed immediate payment of all outstanding salary arrears.

This judgment reinforces that statutory definitions under the POSH Act must be given purposive interpretation rather than narrow, formalistic gloss. Employers must therefore evaluate whether senior officials fall under “employer” as defined in Section 2(g). If they do, complaints must go to LC. Failing to appreciate this distinction not only risks jurisdictional challenges but also allegations of procedural unfairness, illegality or bias.