PoSH Case Law 1 ICC Recommendations

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

room in obvious physical discomfort, and that he physically had gone and knocked at her room at late night. There is also confirmation by her colleagues that she had reached out to them immediately after the visit with the exact narration of the incident as mentioned in the complaint. ICC also finds that the Respondent used his hierarchy as a senior male Team Leader to pressurize her into such a traumatic situation. ICC believes that the complainant did not have much option to deny the directives including the travel plan and spending time with the Respondent as per his wish. The ICC also believes, that the complainant had no reason to frame him due to vested interest in the organization, and has not put the complaint to extend her service, since she had not even worked long enough in TSG to develop rapport with any of the HLFPPT senior management and neither had any understanding of the TSG governance Model. In addition, the ICC also recognizes that the contracting of TSG as an institute is only up to March 2015, and it is highly unlikely for a dignified woman to stake her stigma to be associated with the sexual harassment for a job extension of 5 more months. The statement of witness-Deepak Solanki and Rahul Ram proves that the outstation trip to Hyderabad for the complainant was not required, and her trip to some field of Delhi NCR would have sufficed. It is also clear that it was the Respondent who finally decided that the complainant should be accompanying the Respondent for Hyderabad visit and also, that Deepak Solanki (complainant's direct supervisor) had no say in deciding where the complainant would be taken for field visit. As per statement of Mr. Deepak Solanki, and Ms. Latha Kumari, it is evident that travel plan of Hyderabad including travel arrangement were made by the Respondent and that the Respondent had done the web check in for the complainant and himself for the flight as well. In fact, the Respondent also confirmed in his statement 9th October 2014 that he only had done booking of Hotel Sarovar Aditya Hometel for himself and complainant for 22nd July to 25th July, and for Deepak for 24th July 2014. He has also confirmed that he only had done the web check in for the complainant and himself for ongoing flight to Hyderabad (From Delhi). The statement of the Respondent also confirms that the room booked for the complainant was over and above her official entitlement for the hotel tariff. It has also come to light that the flight approval for the complainant was approved by Deepak Solanki but final decision and approval was given by the Respondent, since Deepak Solanki was not authorized to do so as per Employer's travel rules. The Respondent's contention that the visit to Hyderabad was a planned decision of the Respondent, the Complainant and Mr. Solanki is not of much force. It is pertinent to note that it was the Respondent who had booked the accommodation in the hotel. The Respondent could not give any satisfactory explanation as to why he had booked high tariff room for the complainant, which was also beyond her entitlement. There could be no concern for safety of the Complainant, as contented by the Respondent, because the Respondent and Mr. Solanki were staying in the same hotel. Further, the Respondent claims that the Complainant used the words "As discussed" in her email to Deepak seeking travel

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

5

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