Read Time: 10 minutes

The Delhi High Court has held that the Secretary (Principal Executive Officer) is an employer in terms of Section 2(g) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013.

The court has also held that, "The complaint of sexual harassment against the Secretary would lie only to the Local Committee and the Internal Complaints Committee would not have any jurisdiction to entertain any complaint against the Secretary."

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was hearing a matter where a woman alleged that she had been harassed at the hand of the Secretary of the Akademi she had been working in.

Court noted that as per the constitution of the said employer (Akademi) the Secretary is the Principal Executive Officer of the Akademi and nothing was placed on record by the employer Akademi to show that the day-to-day affairs of the Akademi were managed by someone other than the Secretary.

Therefore, the court observed that "When the definition of “employer” is so wide, so as to include any person who heads any department, ......or any person responsible for the management, supervision and control of the workplace, it cannot be but held that the Secretary, who is the Principal Executive Officer of the Akademi...... would also be included in the definition of an “employer”."

In the present case, the aggrieved woman was appointed to the post of Editor (English) on probation for a period of two years at a renowned publishing house in February 2018. As per the letter of appointment during the period of probation, her services could be terminated without notice or assigning any reason for the same.

The woman had alleged that she faced severe sexual harassment of many forms at the hands of the Secretary, the Principal Executive Officer of the Akademi and in-charge of the publications’s Delhi office .

On November 7, 2019, the aggrieved woman submitted a complaint to the Tilak Marg Police Station and on the same day sent an email to the Executive Board of the Akademi requesting the Executive Board to set up an independent committee to enquire into her complaint of sexual harassment and assault perpetrated by the Secretary of the Akademi. In the said email, she alleged that the Internal Complaints Committee lacked jurisdiction to enquire into her complaint as her complaint was against the Secretary who was the ‘employer’ within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act.

However, the President of the Executive Board, in contravention of the Act, referred her complaint to the Internal Complaints Committee and nominated two allegedly external members to the said Committee.

Following this, the aggrieved woman filed a complaint with the Local Committee. She also prayed for grant of urgent interim reliefs, including grant of paid leave for three months however meanwhile she received multiple notices from the Internal Committee asking her to appear before it.

However, later on, the Local Committee took cognizance of the complaint of the aggrieved woman against the Secretary and directed him to submit his reply. The Local Committee also granted the aggrieved woman relief of three months’ paid leave in terms of Section 12(1) of the Act.

Also, amid the ongoing proceedings, the women’s employment was terminated in February 2020.

Challenging the woman's allegations, the Akademi had also approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated by the Local Committee and the order passed by it holding that the Local Committee had the jurisdiction to conduct an enquiry as prima facie the post of Secretary falls under the definition of “employer” under Section 2(g) of the Act.

In the instant order, the High Court dealt with both the petitions together and held as abovementioned.

The court noted that since no complaint was made by the aggrieved woman to the Internal Committee in terms of Section 9 of the Act, the Internal Committee could not have conducted any inquiry or submitted a report resulting in the termination of the aggrieved woman. 

The court clarified that only the Local Committee is competent to entertain the complaint against the ‘employer’ and since the Secretary is the ‘employer’, the Internal Complaints Committee was not competent to entertain a complaint against the Secretary.

In view of the above, the court disposed of the matter quashing the internal Complains Committee's inquiry report resulting in termination of the services of the aggrieved woman. 

The Court directed that the aggrieved woman would be deemed to continue in service but as a probationer in terms of her appointment letter till the conclusion of the inquiry by the Local Committee and the Akademi shall forthwith pay her salary for the current month and clear the arrears of her salary within four weeks.

Cause Title: XXX v. Akademi & Ors.