In this significant decision under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“PoSH Act”), the Kerala High Court’s Division Bench recently has held that:
- A written complaint under Section 9 is mandatory for an inquiry to be valid. Oral statements by an aggrieved woman, after disowning an earlier anonymous complaint, cannot replace this requirement.
- Allegations without a sexual element — even if they involve hostility or adverse employment action — will not meet the statutory definition in Section 2(n).
- Principles of natural justice are binding on Internal/Local Committees, including the right of the respondent to cross-examine adverse witnesses. Failure renders the proceedings invalid.
- High Court writ jurisdiction can be invoked despite alternative statutory remedies where gross violations of statute or natural justice occur.
- PoSH committees cannot be used to litigate — or re-litigate — employment disputes that lack any connection to acts of sexual harassment as defined in Section 2(n).
Outcome: The Division Bench dismissed the complainant’s appeal and affirmed the Single Judge’s quashing of the Local Committee report and District Collector’s directive.
Background Facts
- Employment & Termination: Appellant employed as Accountant‑cum‑Manager since 1997; terminated on 07.11.2017. Labour Court declared termination illegal; awarded compensation (modified to Rs. 6 lakh in 2022 by High Court).
Also read – Mahi Rath Joins Carlson Hall Solutions as CHRO
- Anonymous Complaint: During labour dispute proceedings, an anonymous complaint of “sexual harassment” was sent to the District Collector, who forwarded it to the Local Committee (LC).
- Complainant’s Statements:
- Before the LC, the complainant:
- Explicitly denied authoring the written complaint:
Court observed,“the appellant had clearly stated she had not submitted any written complaint. … Before the Committee, the appellant disowned the complaint and suggested that the 1st respondent might have been the person who submitted it.” - Alleged the respondent spread rumours, used abusive language (“ne”, “eddy”), and treated her unfairly.
- Aggrieved woman categorically admitted that,
“the 1st respondent did not physically touch her or demand any sexual favours … and was not sure whether there was any sexual harassment in the case.”
- Explicitly denied authoring the written complaint:
- LC Findings: LC held sexual harassment “proved,” awarded ₹19.80 lakh compensation, ordered a written apology, and directed the constitution of an Internal Committee.
- Collector’s Directions: District Collector issued compliance order. Respondent challenged report and letter before Learned Single Judge.
- Single Judge’s Decision: Quashed both due to (i) absence of written complaint, (ii) allegations not amounting to sexual harassment, (iii) denial of cross-examination, and (iv) PoSH jurisdiction misuse.
Issues Considered by the Division Bench
- Is a written complaint mandatory under Section 9?
- Do the allegations constitute “sexual harassment” under Section 2(n)?
- Was the inquiry vitiated by breach of natural justice?
- Can the High Court entertain a writ despite the PoSH Act’s appellate remedies?
- Was the LC justified in proceeding where allegations related to an adjudicated labour dispute?
Key Judicial Observations:
Written Complaint Requirement:
“…it cannot be contended that the appellant was incapable of submitting a written complaint to the Local Committee. Therefore, the oral statement made before the Committee, after distancing herself from the original anonymous complaint, cannot be accepted as a substitute for the written complaint contemplated under S.9 of the PoSH Act. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that, in the absence of a written complaint, the inquiry conducted by the Committee was legally unsustainable.”
Context & Effect:
The Bench stressed the statutory mandate in Section 9 — a complaint “in writing” from the aggrieved woman or permissible alternate persons under Rule 6 is foundational. Oral statements, especially after disclaiming the original complaint, cannot give jurisdiction to the LC.
Allegations of “Sexual Harassment”
“…the 1st respondent did not physically touch her or demand any sexual favours. … [the appellant] was not sure whether there was any sexual harassment in the case. Her allegation was that the 1st respondent created a hostile work environment, behaved in an unfair and cruel manner, and ultimately denied her salary and terminated her service but without any unwelcome acts or behaviour which may tantamount to sexual harassment as defined under S.2(n) of the Act. These acts, evidently, are connected to a labour dispute rather than constituting sexual harassment as defined under the PoSH Act.”
Scope of section 2(n):
“…sub-clauses (i) to (v) are only instances of unwelcome acts or behaviour… when an allegation of sexual harassment is made, though not coming within the parameters … the act should have something to do with a sexual advance either directly or by implication.”
Section 3(2) nexus:
“…any act which tends to affect the women in the form of clauses (i) to (v) in S.3(2) would amount to sexual harassment only if … in relation to or connected with any act or behaviour of sexual harassment.”
Context & Effect:
The Court underscored that a hostile environment or adverse action qualifies under PoSH only if it arises from conduct of a sexual nature.
Violation of Natural Justice
“…statements of these witnesses were recorded over the telephone and not in the presence of the 1st respondent. He was not granted an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses or to challenge their statements.”
Binapani Dei principle:
“…If the essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity. That is a basic concept of the rule of law…”
Context & Effect:
The LC’s inquiry breached Rule 7(4) — failure to conduct the process in line with natural justice, particularly the denial of cross-examination, rendered the findings void.
Writ Jurisdiction Despite Alternative Remedy
“…existence of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar… three well‑recognized exceptions, namely: (i) … Fundamental Rights; (ii) … violation of the principles of natural justice; and (iii) … wholly without jurisdiction…”
“…the Local Committee (LC) has acted in contravention of the statutory provisions and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in exercising writ jurisdiction under Art.226…”
Context & Effect:
The appeal to writ jurisdiction was justified because the LC acted ultra vires and denied basic natural justice safeguards.
Jurisdictional Overreach into Labour Disputes
“…the labour dispute having been adjudicated, the LC was not justified in proceeding with an inquiry regarding alleged unfair labour practices, particularly when the appellant herself admitted there was no element of sexual harassment at the workplace.”
Context & Effect:
The PoSH mechanism is not a substitute for labour law remedies in non‑sexual‑harassment disputes.
Conclusion:“This Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed.”
Practical Implications for Employers &PoSH Committees
- Section 9: Written Complaint is Indispensable
Before commencing any inquiry, the Internal or Local Committee must ensure that there is a written complaint submitted by the aggrieved woman or, in the exceptional circumstances specifically set out in the Rules (such as incapacity or death), by a duly authorized person with proper written consent (paras 13, 16). Oral statements or subsequent allegations cannot substitute for this statutory prerequisite.
- Scrutinize the Sexual Nexus of Alleged Acts
Committees should carefully examine whether the allegations, even if couched as workplace misconduct or hostility, have a clear connection to sexual harassment as defined under Section 2(n) of the Act. Only acts or behaviour that are of a sexual nature (directly or by implication) fall within PoSH jurisdiction; general employment disputes, unfair treatment, or dismissal without this nexus do not (paras 9, 12, 17).
- Uphold Comprehensive Procedural Fairness
Strict adherence to the principles of natural justice is mandatory at every stage of the inquiry. This includes:
- Permitting the respondent to know and respond to each allegation,
- Allowing the respondent to cross-examine all material witnesses whose evidence is relied upon (paras 19, 23).
- Conducting proceedings in the absence of a party, or by relying on telephonic or ex parte evidence without fair opportunity for challenge, may invalidate the process.
- Guard Against Substituting PoSH for Broader Workplace Disputes
The PoSH framework must not be employed to pursue or adjudicate disputes that, in essence, pertain only to employment contracts, wrongful termination, or other non-sexual aspects of workplace unrest (para 18). Committees should be alert to the risk of jurisdictional overreach and refer parties to appropriate forums if there is no clear sexual harassment element.
- Appreciate the Realities of Judicial Scrutiny
Failure to strictly comply with statutory requirements and natural justice exposes PoSH proceedings to early and decisive judicial intervention. The High Court may exercise writ jurisdiction to set aside actions that are ultra vires, procedurally flawed, or violative of basic rights—regardless of the availability of alternative remedies under the Act (paras 24, 25).
Committees should therefore be vigilant in process and substance, recognizing that “shortcuts” or technical lapses may result in their findings being summarily quashed.
Disclaimer
This Legal Update is for academic, educational, and informational purposes only. It should not be construed as legal advice or as a legal opinion specific to any particular situation, or as an advertisement or solicitation for legal services. Readers are encouraged to consult relevant statutory texts and judicial decisions for a complete understanding of the issues discussed.Each situation is unique and requires individual legal assessment.
Case: Xxx v. Abraham Mathai,(Writ Appeal No. 1622 of 2025):2025 KHC OnLine 849 | 2025 KER 57427 | 2025 KLT OnLine 2566 ( Kerala HC DB), Decided on 1.8.25.
Stay connected with us on social media platforms for instant updates click here to join our LinkedIn, Twitter & Facebook
