The Kerala High Court has made a significant ruling concerning the interpretation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, commonly known as the POSH Act. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice Murali Krishna S examined whether the director of the Integrated Rural Technology Centre (IRTC) in Palakkad should be considered an ’employee’ or ’employer’ under the Act. This determination was pivotal in deciding the legitimacy of an internal sexual harassment inquiry against him.
The case arose when the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of IRTC initiated proceedings against Professor Dr. J Sundareshan Pillai, the institute’s director, following a sexual harassment complaint by a female employee. Dr. Pillai contested the inquiry, arguing that as the director, he should be classified as an ’employer’ under Section 2(g)(ii) of the POSH Act. According to the Act, complaints against an ’employer’ should be addressed by the Local Committee, not the ICC.
However, the High Court found otherwise. It concluded that Dr. Pillai was an ’employee’ due to the governance structure of the IRTC. The Court’s decision was based on an analysis of the IRTC’s Memorandum of Association, which reveals that the director operates under the supervision of the executive committee and the general body, which hold ultimate authority. As a result, the ICC was deemed competent to conduct the investigation.
Justice Anil Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S emphasized that a person’s title does not solely determine their status as an employer or employee. “The overall management of IRTC by the Director is subject to the control and supervision of the executive committee and the general body,” the Court noted. This interpretation aligned with Clause 23.2.2 of the Memorandum, affirming the director’s appointment by the executive committee, thereby classifying him as an employee.
Dr. Pillai also alleged bias within the ICC, claiming that the Presiding Officer harbored a conflict of interest and personal animosity. Despite these claims, a single-judge Bench had previously refused to suspend the ICC’s proceedings, prompting Dr. Pillai to appeal the decision. The Division Bench confirmed that the ICC had jurisdiction, given that Dr. Pillai did not possess ultimate control over the institution’s affairs.
More Read
Furthermore, the Court observed that the structure of the ICC ensured fairness, as the complainant would abstain from participating in the decision-making process. The Bench dismissed Dr. Pillai’s appeal, finding no procedural irregularities in the ICC’s actions or the single-judge ruling.
The legal representatives involved in the case included senior counsel Hariraj MR, alongside advocates CV Manuvilsan, OA Anju, and Alana Mohammed Ali Cholassery for the appellant. Advocate Thomas Abraham represented the ICC and IRTC board, while Senior Government Pleader Nisha Bose appeared for the state authorities.
