PoSH Case Law 1 ICC Recommendations

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

approval implies that the decision was taken with her consent. ICC is of the view that the complainant had not complained that she was pressurized to go, and further the reference of a discussion does not imply that the decision was a participatory or taken with the consent of the complainant, it may also mean the directive that was discussed. The Respondent has also raised the defense that he had booked Deepak Solanki in the same hotel, which proves that he did not have any malicious intention. The said contention is countered by the fact that travel was planned in such a way that Deepak was to check in the hotel only on 24th July, while the Respondent and complainant was booked from 22 nd July onwards. Further, Respondent's contention is that if complainant was apprehensive of accompanying with Respondent then she had almost a week's time to refuse to travel to Hyderabad but she did not do so at all which means that she travel willingly without any pressure. ICC is of the view that the Complainant being a junior employee had no choice but to go to Hyderabad. She went ahead with the Hyderabad visit as she could not have a said a categorical 'NO' to the Respondent (a senior employee) as it would have severely reflected on her performance on the job. Further this was a case of an official trip, directed by two seniors of the Complainant, there was no scope for a junior employee to say no on the pretext of insecurity. ICC is of the view that this is a case where the male hierarchy has used his power to create apprehension and at the same time used that power to abide by his plan. Further, it has also come into evidence no staff as TSG had the courage to raise voice against the Respondent. ICC has also perused the Statement of Hotel Aditya Hometel dated 20th October, which has confirmed that they (The Hotel) got the reservation request from Respondent for 3 Superior rooms on 17th July 2014 at 14.50 hrs (Respondent & Complainant) for 3 nights (from 22th to 25th 2014). Mr. Deepak Solanki one night 24th and 25th and the confirmation number for the same was 49918. The Respondent had requested for reservation of Superior rooms, which was superior room no. 115 in 1st Floor and the complaint was allotted Superior Room no. 202 in second floor, by the Hotel Aditya Hometel, during their check in on 22nd July, but within 14 minutes the Respondent had changed his booked Superior room 115, to Suite room 204 which was in the same floor and next to the complainant's room(202). The Respondent's contention that the room allotted to him was very uncomfortable & cramped to him therefore as he saw that room, he immediately requested hotel for a change which they did and the next room allotted to him by hotel was a suite room within his entitlement as well as he opted for that. The said contention is liable to be rejected as the Respondent has himself booked superior rooms and further he has stated that he used to stay in the same hotel during Hyderabad visit. This implies that the Respondent was very familiar with the rooms and the facilities in the Hotel and the intent behind shifting to a room next to the Complainant's room was not bona fide and could not be explained satisfactorily by the Respondent. Further it is difficult to believe that the hotel staff allotted a higher

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

6

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