Employment Law Newsletter – Kerala High Court Quashes ICC Proceedings for Lack of Sexual Harassment Allegations : March 2025
The Kerala High Court, in WP(C) No. 24867 of 2024, recently ruled on the jurisdiction of an Internal Complaints Committee (“ICC”) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”). The Court held that the ICC lacks authority to proceed with a complaint that does not prima facie allege sexual harassment as defined under Section 2(n) of the POSH Act.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a manager at Kerala State Financial Enterprises (KSFE), was subjected to ICC proceedings based on a complaint filed by the third respondent. The complaint arose after the petitioner issued a charge memo to eight female employees for failing to meet a work target. The third respondent, who was not employed at the petitioner’s branch, along with other political union members, allegedly entered the petitioner’s office without permission and engaged in a confrontation. The petitioner later filed a police complaint regarding this incident.
Subsequently, the third respondent lodged a complaint with the
ICC, alleging that the petitioner used offensive language and attempted to record their conversation without consent. The ICC initiated proceedings based on this complaint, prompting the petitioner to challenge its jurisdiction before the High Court.
Court’s Key Observations
The Kerala High Court examined whether the allegations in the complaint constituted sexual harassment under Section 2(n) of the POSH Act, which includes:
- Physical contact and advances;
- Demand or request for sexual favors;
- Making sexually colored remarks;
- Showing pornography;
- Any other unwelcome physical, verbal, or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature.
The court found that the complaint did not contain any elements that could be classified as sexual harassment under the POSH Act. The allegations were limited to verbal abuse and unauthorized video recording, which do not fall within the statutory definition of sexual harassment. Consequently, the court ruled that the ICC lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the case and quashed the notice issued to the petitioner.
Implications of the Judgment
- Scope of ICC Jurisdiction: The ruling reinforces that ICCs cannot proceed with complaints that do not meet the statutory definition of sexual harassment.
- Capacity Building Training: By providing adequate training to the ICC, organizations must ensure that ICCs conduct a prima facie assessment before initiating proceedings.
- Judicial Intervention in POSH Cases: Courts can intervene in ICC proceedings if there is a lack of jurisdiction. This case underscores the importance of judicial review in preventing misuse of POSH mechanisms for unrelated grievances.
Conclusion
This ruling provides clarity on the jurisdictional limitations of ICCs under the POSH Act. While the POSH Act is designed to provide robust protections against workplace sexual harassment, it cannot be invoked for complaints that do not fall within its purview. Employers and ICCs must exercise due diligence in assessing complaints to ensure compliance with the legal framework.
For organizations, this judgment serves as a reminder to establish clear procedural guidelines for handling POSH complaints and ensuring ICC members are well-trained in interpreting the legal scope of sexual harassment.
