Court rules that public transportation is not a 'workplace' under the Sexual Harassment Act, 2013.
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court quashed the order issued by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of the State Bank of India regarding a sexual harassment complaint against an employee, Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute. The court concluded that the ICC lacked jurisdiction because the alleged incident did not occur at a "workplace" as defined under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
The division bench, comprising Justices Mr. Suman Shyam and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, underscored that transportation provided by an employer is included in the definition of "workplace" under Section 2(o) of the Act. However, public transportation, such as a shared autorickshaw, does not qualify. The court ruled that the ICC cannot entertain complaints if the alleged incident did not occur at a workplace as defined by the Act.
The case arose when Satpute, an employee of the State Bank of India, was accused of sexual harassment by Respondent No.3 during a shared autorickshaw ride. The ICC of the respondent's employer found Satpute guilty and recommended disciplinary action. However, the High Court found the ICC's jurisdictional basis flawed, as the incident took place in public transportation not provided by the employer.
The judgment emphasized that before proceeding with an inquiry, an ICC must first establish that the alleged harassment occurred at a "workplace" as per the Act. The court further clarified that the ICC's order was unsustainable in law due to the jurisdictional error and quashed the order dated 29th August 2023.
This decision highlights the importance of correctly interpreting the definition of "workplace" under the Act and ensures that jurisdictional prerequisites are met before ICCs proceed with inquiries into allegations of sexual harassment.
Bottom line:-
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act - Jurisdiction - Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) does not have jurisdiction to entertain complaints of sexual harassment unless the alleged incident occurred at the "workplace" as defined under Section 2(o) of the Act.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 2(o), 9, 11 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute v. State Bank of India, (Bombay)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2926004
