2015 LAB. I. C. 3527 ::2015 (5) ADR 183 ::(2015) 220 DLT 60 ::(2015) 147 FacLR 18 ::(2015) 3 RecCriR 437 ::(2015) 4 Crimes 100 ::(2015) 3 SCT 525 ::(2016) 1 ServLR 78

Delhi High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): Valmiki, J. Mehta , J

( A ) Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act (14 of 2013) S. 2 (g) (i),(ii), 13 (3) (i), 19 — Employer — Meaning — Complainant employed by respondent No. 1 was posted with respondent No. 3 some other organisation for project work — Plea that respondent No. 1/employer had no jurisdiction to enquire into complaint inasmuch as complaint had to be enquired into by respondent No. 3 with whom petitioner was posted since as per S. 2(g) (ii) it is the management at work place which has control over work place only and thus has power to take action — Respondent No. 1 is employer covered under S. 2 (g) (i) — S. 2 (g) (ii) has no application — Action taken by actual employer is within its jurisdiction — Further plea that ICC had no power to make recommendation for termination of services of the petitioner — Also not tenable as S. 13 (3), (i) specifically states that ICC shall recommend to employer action which is to be taken against employee — Moreso in absence of anything to show any service Rules prohibiting termination of services. (Paras5(i(ii))

( B ) Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act (14 of 2013) S. 2 (g) S. 9, 11, 19 — Sexual harassment of women at workplace — Proof — Allegation that petitioner who was only male member in senior position took complainant to outstation under pretext of office work and forced her to spend night with him — Fact that complainant was in hotel room of petitioner for sometime and petitioner thereafter went to the room of complainant established by report of ICC — It also showed that petitioner was in habit of arranging trips in which female staff used to be taken along with him and many of such female staff had appeared harried and worried on returning back — Delay in lodging complaint was not fatal in view of fact that it was first time when a victim had raised her voice against petitioner and she required lot of courage to do so as she was young and unmarried — There is no reason why complainant would want to adversely affect her reputation at her young age by making such a complaint — Order of termination of services of petitioner not liable to be interfered with. (Paras77(v8910).....