PoSH Case Law 1 ICC Recommendations

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

detained her in his hotel room forced her to take Biriyani or otherwise spend the night in his room that her hotel room key was taken away by Respondent. From the statement of Sudarshan Negi and Latha Kumari, it is evident that there was change in the behaviour of the complainant after return from Hyderabad and that she was agitated and disturbed. There is nothing on record to disprove the statements made by the witnesses in relation to the present issue. The entire circumstances go against the Respondent and hence, the present issue stands proved against the Respondent." (underlining added) 7. A reading of the aforesaid portion of the report of the ICC shows that it is an admitted fact that the complainant was in the hotel room of the petitioner. The fact with respect to the complainant having to eat biryani is also borne out from the statements of the complainant and the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner thereafter went to the room of the complainant, of course allegedly on the pretext of health, is also an admitted fact. The aspect is that whose version should be believed ie viz of the complainant or of the petitioner. I have already reproduced detailed findings with respect to the issue no.1 above and some of the relevant aspects given by the ICC to hold the first issue/charge against the petitioner are rightly as under:-

(i) Complainant immediately after the trip to Hyderabad narrated the incident to her colleagues.

(ii) The Hyderabad trip of the complainant was in fact not required and it was sufficient if the complainant would have got experience within the Delhi NCR itself and which is also confirmed by the statements of the witnesses Sh. Deepak Solanki and Sh. Rahul Ram.

(iii) The petitioner himself had done the booking of the complainant at the concerned Hotel Sarovar Aditya Hometel and that too beyond the financial entitlement of the complainant.

(iv) The trip at Hyderabad was planned in such a way that the petitioner and the complainant would be alone in the hotel for three out of the four days at the Hyderabad trip because booking at the hotel for the rooms of the complainant and the petitioner was from 22nd July, 2014 to 25th July, 2014 whereas the booking for the other employee was only for 24th July, 2014. (v) Petitioner was given a different room on the different floor being the first floor being the room no.115 but within about 14 minutes of check-in in the hotel, the petitioner changed his room from 115 to suite no. 204 which was adjacent to the room no. 202 on the second floor which was booked for the complainant. (vi) Another employee Mr. Joseph Savy (RMM, TSG) had checked into the same Hotel Aditya Hometel on 22.10.2014, and then he was directed by Sh. Deepak Solanki on the instructions of the petitioner to move out of hotel by 7 pm and to check-in to another hotel which is next to Hotel Aditya Hometel.

8. The aforesaid aspects show that the findings and conclusions with respect to first issue/charge against the petitioner are not without any evidence as argued on behalf of the petitioner. In fact, at

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

8

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