Dear Colleagues,
Legal position on management's right to modify IC recommendations under POSH Act
What is the legal position regarding the right of the management to modify the recommended punishment by the IC under the POSH Act? Is management bound to follow the recommendation, or can it award either a harsher punishment or a lesser punishment?
Thanks
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
19Legal position on management's right to modify IC recommendations under POSH Act
What is the legal position regarding the right of the management to modify the recommended punishment by the IC under the POSH Act? Is management bound to follow the recommendation, or can it award either a harsher punishment or a lesser punishment?
Thanks
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Legal Boundaries of Management Regarding POSH Act Recommendations
The management cannot modify the recommendations of the Internal Committee formed under The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal Act, i.e., POSH Act). The respondent or the complainant can file an appeal if the punishment awarded is not proper. However, since the employer is not a party to the incident, they cannot interfere in the proceedings or the recommendations of the Committee. Moreover, if the employer fails to award the punishment within 60 days, they can be booked for non-compliance with the Act.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The management cannot modify the recommendations of the Internal Committee formed under The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal Act, i.e., POSH Act). The respondent or the complainant can file an appeal if the punishment awarded is not proper. However, since the employer is not a party to the incident, they cannot interfere in the proceedings or the recommendations of the Committee. Moreover, if the employer fails to award the punishment within 60 days, they can be booked for non-compliance with the Act.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Mr. Madhu TK Sir, I have a query regarding the recommendation of punishment by the Internal Committee (IC).
Let us compare it with the domestic inquiry conducted by the company for misconduct by an employee other than sexual harassment. The Enquiry Officer (EO) is expected to conduct the investigation and bring to light the failures, be they human or systemic. Earlier, I read on this forum that the EO does not have the power to recommend the punishment. It is the prerogative of the management to decide on the nature and quantum of punishment.
In contrast, does the POSH Act of 2013 empower the IC to recommend punishment to the accused? I would be thankful if you could shed light on this topic.
Regards,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Let us compare it with the domestic inquiry conducted by the company for misconduct by an employee other than sexual harassment. The Enquiry Officer (EO) is expected to conduct the investigation and bring to light the failures, be they human or systemic. Earlier, I read on this forum that the EO does not have the power to recommend the punishment. It is the prerogative of the management to decide on the nature and quantum of punishment.
In contrast, does the POSH Act of 2013 empower the IC to recommend punishment to the accused? I would be thankful if you could shed light on this topic.
Regards,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
The legal position regarding the right of management to modify the recommended punishment by the Internal Committee (IC) under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act, 2013, is nuanced and has been addressed through various legal interpretations and judgments.
Legal Framework
Under the POSH Act, the Internal Committee (IC) is established to handle complaints of sexual harassment in the workplace. The IC conducts inquiries and makes recommendations based on its findings. The relevant provisions are:
Section 13(3) of the POSH Act: After completing the inquiry, the IC submits its report to the employer, recommending the action to be taken against the respondent.
Section 13(4) of the POSH Act: It states that the employer shall act upon the recommendation within 60 days of its receipt.
Judicial Interpretations
Several judicial pronouncements have clarified the extent of the employer's discretion in modifying the IC's recommendations:
Employer's Discretion:
Courts have generally upheld that while the IC's recommendations are significant and should be given due weight, they are not binding on the employer. The employer has the discretion to modify the recommended punishment. This discretion must, however, be exercised judiciously and reasonably, with a clear rationale provided for any modifications.
Principle of Proportionality:
The punishment awarded should be proportionate to the offense. If the employer decides to award a harsher or lesser punishment, it must be justifiable and in line with principles of natural justice. Arbitrary or capricious deviations from the IC's recommendations can be challenged in courts.
Judicial Review:
The decisions of the employer, including any modifications to the IC's recommendations, are subject to judicial review. If an employee believes that the employer's decision is unreasonable or unjust, they can challenge it in a court of law. Courts have intervened in cases where they found that the employer's action was either too harsh or too lenient compared to the IC's recommendations.
Key Judgments
Vishaka & Ors vs State of Rajasthan (1997): This landmark case laid the foundation for addressing sexual harassment in the workplace in India. While it predates the POSH Act, the principles of due process and fairness established in this case influence how IC recommendations and employer actions are viewed.
Ruchika Singh Chhabra vs Air France India and Another (2018): In this case, the Delhi High Court emphasized that while the IC's role is crucial, the final disciplinary authority rests with the employer. The court held that the employer could modify the IC's recommendations, provided the reasons for such modifications are well-documented and justified.
Conclusion
In summary, while the recommendations of the IC under the POSH Act are significant and should be given considerable weight, the employer is not strictly bound to follow them. The management has the right to modify the recommended punishment, either to increase or decrease it, but this discretion must be exercised judiciously, reasonably, and with clear documentation of the rationale behind any changes. Such decisions are subject to judicial review to ensure fairness and adherence to the principles of natural justice.
Thanks
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The legal position regarding the right of management to modify the recommended punishment by the Internal Committee (IC) under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act, 2013, is nuanced and has been addressed through various legal interpretations and judgments.
Legal Framework
Under the POSH Act, the Internal Committee (IC) is established to handle complaints of sexual harassment in the workplace. The IC conducts inquiries and makes recommendations based on its findings. The relevant provisions are:
Section 13(3) of the POSH Act: After completing the inquiry, the IC submits its report to the employer, recommending the action to be taken against the respondent.
Section 13(4) of the POSH Act: It states that the employer shall act upon the recommendation within 60 days of its receipt.
Judicial Interpretations
Several judicial pronouncements have clarified the extent of the employer's discretion in modifying the IC's recommendations:
Employer's Discretion:
Courts have generally upheld that while the IC's recommendations are significant and should be given due weight, they are not binding on the employer. The employer has the discretion to modify the recommended punishment. This discretion must, however, be exercised judiciously and reasonably, with a clear rationale provided for any modifications.
Principle of Proportionality:
The punishment awarded should be proportionate to the offense. If the employer decides to award a harsher or lesser punishment, it must be justifiable and in line with principles of natural justice. Arbitrary or capricious deviations from the IC's recommendations can be challenged in courts.
Judicial Review:
The decisions of the employer, including any modifications to the IC's recommendations, are subject to judicial review. If an employee believes that the employer's decision is unreasonable or unjust, they can challenge it in a court of law. Courts have intervened in cases where they found that the employer's action was either too harsh or too lenient compared to the IC's recommendations.
Key Judgments
Vishaka & Ors vs State of Rajasthan (1997): This landmark case laid the foundation for addressing sexual harassment in the workplace in India. While it predates the POSH Act, the principles of due process and fairness established in this case influence how IC recommendations and employer actions are viewed.
Ruchika Singh Chhabra vs Air France India and Another (2018): In this case, the Delhi High Court emphasized that while the IC's role is crucial, the final disciplinary authority rests with the employer. The court held that the employer could modify the IC's recommendations, provided the reasons for such modifications are well-documented and justified.
Conclusion
In summary, while the recommendations of the IC under the POSH Act are significant and should be given considerable weight, the employer is not strictly bound to follow them. The management has the right to modify the recommended punishment, either to increase or decrease it, but this discretion must be exercised judiciously, reasonably, and with clear documentation of the rationale behind any changes. Such decisions are subject to judicial review to ensure fairness and adherence to the principles of natural justice.
Thanks
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Divekar Sir, a domestic enquiry on a charge other than sexual harassment is different. A domestic enquiry is conducted not by a statutory body or committee, but an enquiry on sexual harassment is conducted by a statutory committee, a committee to be formed as mandated by law, i.e., the PoSH Act. The proceedings of the PoSH Committee are expected to be in tune with the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and they have the same powers as are vested in a civil court. As such, they can pronounce the punishment. However, an enquiry officer cannot award a punishment; the punishment is decided by the Disciplinary authority or the employer based on the report of the enquiry officer. A domestic enquiry is conducted just to ensure that the delinquent is given sufficient opportunities to be heard before action is taken against him.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks to all, particularly Mr. Raghunath, who has cited case laws related to the query. Based on the case of Ruchika Singh cited by him, it is clear that the employer has the power to review the punishment recommended by the IC if there are justifiable and convincing reasons.
Regards,
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Regards,
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Ruchika Singh Chhabra vs Air France India and Another (2018 LLR 697)
This case discusses the constitutional validity of the ICC formed by the respondents, i.e., Air France India. The ICC, constituted by the employer, included an outside member, Mr. Michael Dias, an advocate and the secretary of the Employers' Association. He was not associated with any NGO dealing with women's issues but was only a labor law lawyer. According to section 4(2)(c) of the PoSH Act, the member from outside the organization should be from non-governmental organizations or associations committed to the cause of women or familiar with issues relating to sexual harassment. The court found that the constitution of the ICC by Air France did not meet the basic requirements of the Committee and declared all its resultant proceedings, including the report submitted, invalid. The court directed that the ICC should be reconstituted in strict compliance with legal requirements within thirty days and that the committee should conduct its inquiry afresh.
Employer's Role in Modifying ICC Findings
In this case, it was not mentioned that the employer can modify the findings and recommendations of the ICC. I am unsure if there is any other court observation that allows the employer to modify the ICC's recommendations. This is because the ICC is a statutory committee that follows the Code of Civil Procedure, and the employer is not a party to the case. In Ruchika's case, unfortunately, the employer (key management persons) tried to avoid the case, which led to Ruchika being asked to resign and leave within half an hour without taking her personal belongings. With the help of the Women's Cell and the Police, she retrieved her belongings. When she realized the ICC would not conduct the inquiry properly, she filed a complaint before the Court. Although the lower court dismissed it citing jurisdictional issues, the High Court allowed the appeal. Thus, the appeal was about jurisdiction and the validity of the ICC, and nothing else. A copy of the verdict is attached; you can read it and post your comments here.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This case discusses the constitutional validity of the ICC formed by the respondents, i.e., Air France India. The ICC, constituted by the employer, included an outside member, Mr. Michael Dias, an advocate and the secretary of the Employers' Association. He was not associated with any NGO dealing with women's issues but was only a labor law lawyer. According to section 4(2)(c) of the PoSH Act, the member from outside the organization should be from non-governmental organizations or associations committed to the cause of women or familiar with issues relating to sexual harassment. The court found that the constitution of the ICC by Air France did not meet the basic requirements of the Committee and declared all its resultant proceedings, including the report submitted, invalid. The court directed that the ICC should be reconstituted in strict compliance with legal requirements within thirty days and that the committee should conduct its inquiry afresh.
Employer's Role in Modifying ICC Findings
In this case, it was not mentioned that the employer can modify the findings and recommendations of the ICC. I am unsure if there is any other court observation that allows the employer to modify the ICC's recommendations. This is because the ICC is a statutory committee that follows the Code of Civil Procedure, and the employer is not a party to the case. In Ruchika's case, unfortunately, the employer (key management persons) tried to avoid the case, which led to Ruchika being asked to resign and leave within half an hour without taking her personal belongings. With the help of the Women's Cell and the Police, she retrieved her belongings. When she realized the ICC would not conduct the inquiry properly, she filed a complaint before the Court. Although the lower court dismissed it citing jurisdictional issues, the High Court allowed the appeal. Thus, the appeal was about jurisdiction and the validity of the ICC, and nothing else. A copy of the verdict is attached; you can read it and post your comments here.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Employers' Liability Act 1938.pdf
Membership of the Internal Complaints Committee.docx