Delhi High Court Reinforces Compliance with POSH Act, Directs Action on Workplace Harassment Complaint

WP(C) 4063/2023, the case involves a writ petition filed by an aggrieved woman under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”) in the Delhi High Court. The petitioner sought the court’s intervention to ensure compliance with the POSH Act by directing the formation of an Internal Committee (“IC”) in her workplace, Enlive Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., to address her sexual harassment complaint. The petitioner alleged that despite filing a complaint with the Police Commissioner and the District Magistrate (DM), no action had been taken to address her grievance or constitute an IC. The High Court, in an earlier order dated March 29, 2023, directed the DM to act in accordance with the law and ensure the formation of an IC. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for implementation of the court’s directions, claiming there had been significant delays and that no effective action had been taken. It was revealed that the respondent company’s office in Delhi was non-functional, and the matter was transferred to the DM of Gautam Buddha Nagar, as the petitioner’s workplace was in Noida. A Local Complaints Committee (“LCC”) was constituted, as the company lacked an IC, to investigate the complaint.  In a separate application, the petitioner sought to include Rajat Bansal, the CFO and one of the directors of the respondent company, as a party to the proceedings. The respondent contested the application, arguing that the writ petition was already disposed of, and that he did not hold a managerial role in the company. However, the court held that the POSH Act’s objective of preventing harassment at the workplace warranted a thorough investigation, regardless of the company’s status. It directed Mr. Bansal to appear before the LCC and provide details of other directors. The judgment emphasized the purpose of the POSH Act, rooted in the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), which laid down guidelines to prevent workplace harassment. The court stated that the winding-up of the respondent company did not absolve it of responsibility to address the petitioner’s complaint. It reiterated that the petitioner’s identity must remain confidential throughout the proceedings.  The court concluded by directing the LCC to proceed under the provisions of the POSH Act and clarified that it had made no observations on the merits of the case, ensuring that the petitioner’s right to a fair and impartial inquiry was upheld.