PoSH Case Law 1 ICC Recommendations

Gaurav Jain vs Hindustan Latex Family Planning ... on 7 January, 2015

(b) Warning to Deepak Solanki, Joseph Savy and Narsimhan for their gender insensitive conduct towards a female colleague during outstation travel by inviting her to a hotel room at night and drinking & smoking by 4 male members in front of a female colleague till the midnight. ICC also recommends counseling them on gender sensitivity. (c) Undertake regular gender sensitization program including training with regard to Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 in all units of HLFPPT irrespective of governance structure.

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Dr.Anasua Dr. Madhu Renu D Sreenivas Shoumen Bagchi Sharma Sharma Rao Paul, Member, Presiding Member, Member, Member, ICC" Officer, ICC ICC ICC ICC

2. There were a total of 7 charges against the petitioner on the aspect of harassment of the complainant. Five out of the seven issues have been held in favour of the complainant and against the petitioner, with the second issue and the seventh issue not being decided against the petitioner. 3. The facts of the case are that the complainant Ms. Nidhi Guha made a complaint of her sexual harassment by the petitioner and which complaint pertains to two basic set of facts. The first set of facts pertains to the trip/tour to Hyderabad from 22.7.2014 to 25.7.2014. The second set of facts pertains to harassment of the complainant by the petitioner after coming back from the tour/trip at Hyderabad and which is said to be on account of the complainant not bowing to the illegal actions of the petitioner. 4. The law with respect to hearing of a challenge against orders passed by departmental authorities is that this Court does not sit as an appellate court over the findings and conclusions of departmental authorities; being the ICC in the present case. ICC was constituted by the respondent no.1/employer in terms of the relevant provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2014. ICC issued notice to the petitioner. Petitioner filed his reply to the charges. Evidence was led by both the parties. Department examined 11 witnesses in support of the charges besides filing documentary evidence. Once detailed findings and conclusions are given by the departmental authority/ICC based on the evidence led before the ICC, unless the findings are perverse, this Court cannot interfere with the findings of facts and conclusions given by the ICC. A Court interferes with the orders passed by the departmental authorities only if the same are in violation of the principles of natural justice or are in violation of rules of the organization/ the law or the findings and conclusions of the departmental authorities are perverse and which no reasonable man could have arrived at or if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. In the present case, the two aspects

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/51542087/


Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online