Employment Law Newsletter – Madras High Court Emphasizes Impact Over Intent in Landmark PoSH Case: February 2025
Case: HCL Technologies Ltd. vs N.Parsarathy
Court: Madras High Court
Date of Judgment: January 22, 2025
Case No.: W.P. No. 5643 of 2020; W.M.P.No.6594 of 2020 & 25713 of 2021
Background:
HCL Technologies Ltd. filed a writ petition challenging the Principal Labour Court’s decision, which had overturned the findings of the Internal Committee (“IC”) in a sexual harassment case under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal), 2013 (“PoSH Act”). The IC found a senior employee guilty of sexual harassment based on multiple complaints and recommended:
- Final warning and removal from any supervisory role
- Restriction of work location to India
- Ineligibility for pay raises or benefits for two years
The employee appealed to the Labour Court, which set aside the IC’s recommendations, citing lack of fair hearing and non- provision of CCTV footage.
Key Issues:
- Was the IC’s inquiry conducted fairly under the PoSH Act?
- Did the Labour Court have valid grounds to overturn the IC’s findings?
- Does withholding CCTV footage constitute a violation of natural justice?
Court’s Observations & Ruling:
IC’s Role & Authority:
The Labour Court misinterpreted the IC’s function, erroneously treating it as an Industrial Tribunal rather than a specialized body addressing sexual harassment complaints.
Standard of Evidence:
The PoSH Act does not impose criminal trial standards of proof— victim perception and experience are central to the assessment.
CCTV Footage Not Critical:
PoSH cases rely primarily on testimony and contextual evidence, making CCTV footage non-essential.
Delayed Challenge Raises Concerns:
The employee contested the IC’s findings only after termination, indicating a potential attempt to retaliate rather than a genuine grievance.
Judicial Overreach:
The Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with a properly conducted IC inquiry.
Final Judgment:
- Labour Court’s order quashed
- IC’s recommendations upheld
- Writ petition allowed in favor of HCL Technologies Ltd.
Why This Judgment Matters:
- Reinforcing focus on impact and not the intent:The court’s ruling underscores that PoSH inquiries focus on the impact of behavior rather than the intent behind it. This aligns with global best practices in handling workplace harassment, where the victim’s perception and experience take precedence over the alleged harasser’s justification.
- Upholding IC’s autonomy: The decision reinforces that the IC is not equivalent to an Industrial Tribunal and should be given due deference in its findings. The PoSH Act was designed to provide a specialized, employer-driven mechanism for redressal, and excessive judicial interference can undermine its effectiveness.
- Natural justice in PoSH inquiries: While principles of natural justice must be upheld, this case highlights that PoSH proceedings are not bound by rigid evidentiary standards akin to criminal Courts must recognize that:
- CCTV footage is not always determinative in PoSH cases, as many forms of harassment occur beyond camera surveillance.
- Cross-examination should not become a tool for secondary victimization, and ICs have discretion to limit intrusive questioning.
- Preventing retaliatory challenges: The fact that the employee challenged the IC’s findings only after his termination raises concerns about retaliatory litigation. This should serve as a reminder for employers to:
- Ensure timely communication of IC findings and recommendations.
- Establish clear documentation of due process to pre-empt challenges based on procedural lapses.
- Need for strengthening employer policies and training: This case reaffirms the need for:
- Regular sensitization training for employees and leadership on PoSH compliance. Well-structured
- internal procedures that balance fairness with victim protection. Proa
- ctive HR interventions to address potential workplace culture issues before they escalate into legal disputes.
This judgment is a significant win for workplace safety and PoSH compliance, ensuring that IC decisions—when conducted fairly— are not easily overturned by judicial overreach. It also signals a stronger, focus on principle that the impact on the complainant takes precedence over the intent of the accused.
