The Bombay High Court has recently overturned a decision by the State Bank of India’s (SBI) internal committee which had previously found a male employee guilty of sexual harassment in an incident alleged to have occurred in a shared autorickshaw. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Suman Shyam and Firdosh Pooniwalla, ruled that the internal committee lacked the jurisdiction to determine the matter, as the incident did not occur at a ‘workplace’ as defined under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
Key Legal Findings
The Court emphasized that under the POSH Act, an internal committee of an organization can only process complaints of sexual harassment if the alleged incidents take place at a ‘workplace’. The Court clarified that an autorickshaw used by an employee to commute does not constitute a ‘workplace’ unless the transportation is provided by the employer. In this instance, neither the SBI employee’s nor the complainant’s employer provided the autorickshaw.
Justice Shyam and Justice Pooniwalla noted, “In these circumstances, such transportation would not fall within the definition of a ‘workplace’. Therefore, the alleged incident did not occur at a ‘workplace’.”
Case Background
The case arose from a complaint filed by a woman who alleged that Siddhesh Satpute, an SBI employee, had inappropriately touched her while traveling in a shared autorickshaw from Kurla station to Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC) on March 24, 2023. Satpute denied the allegations, suggesting that his hand might have inadvertently brushed against hers during the ride.
The SBI’s internal committee had initially found Satpute liable for sexual harassment in August 2023. However, Satpute challenged this finding in the Bombay High Court, leading to the order being quashed due to the lack of jurisdiction.
More Read
Legal Implications and Future Considerations
In its decision, the Court highlighted the importance of internal committees addressing jurisdictional issues before proceeding with inquiries into sexual harassment allegations. The Bench also made it clear that it had not examined the validity of the harassment claims themselves, leaving that aspect open for determination in future proceedings.
Justice Shyam and Justice Pooniwalla stated, “The said aspect of the matter is left open to be dealt with in accordance with law in an appropriate proceeding.”
Advocates Anand Pande and Shobit Shukla represented Siddhesh Satpute, while Advocates Abhijit Joshi, Varsha Sawant, Varad Sirsikar, and Sourav Somani represented the State Bank of India.
