The Madras High Court has reinforced the necessity of a safe work environment for women, declaring that any unwelcome behavior towards them constitutes sexual harassment under the PoSH Act. The ruling emphasizes the victim’s perspective over the harasser’s intent, requiring employers to prioritize decency in workplace interactions and proactively prevent harassment.
Chennai: The Madras High Court has reiterated the importance of creating a safe and respectful work environment for women. The court’s recent ruling has sent a strong message to employers and employees alike, emphasizing that any act or words that make a woman feel uncomfortable at her workplace, or are perceived by her as being unwelcome, constitute an act of sexual harassment as defined under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (PoSH) Act. This landmark decision has far-reaching implications for workplaces across the country, and it is essential to understand the nuances of this ruling.
The Madras High Court’s judgment, passed on January 22, invoked the ‘reasonable woman standard’, which prioritizes how a victim perceives a behavior and not necessarily the intentions of the harasser. Justice RN Manjula held that the PoSH Act focuses on the impact of the behavior on the victim, rather than the perpetrator’s intent. As the court noted,
“If something is not received well and it is inappropriate and felt as an unwelcome behavior affecting the other sex, namely the women, no doubt it would fall under the definition of ‘sexual harassment'”.
Read Also: Supreme Court Mandates Internal Complaint Committees for Harassment Reporting
The court’s decision was influenced by a US Court’s judgment, Joseph Oncale vs Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. (523 U.S 75(1998)), which observed that in matters of complaints related to sexual harassment in workplaces, the standard of reasonableness is not the standard of a reasonable man but that of a reasonable woman. This ruling highlights the importance of considering the perspective of the victim, particularly women, in determining what constitutes sexual harassment.
The Madras High Court’s judgment also emphasized that corporate employees are expected to understand that they must interact with their colleagues while maintaining certain levels of decency. Moreover, such yardstick of ‘decent’ behavior must be assessed through the lens of how such behavior makes others, particularly women, feel. As the court noted,
“The definition of ‘sexual harassment’ as it is seen from the PoSH Act has given significance to the act than the intention behind the same”.
The court made these observations while quashing and setting aside an order passed by a labor court that had overturned the findings of sexual harassment arrived at by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of multi-national corporation, HCL Technologies, against one of its senior employees. The ICC had found the employee guilty of sexual harassment after three women complained that he would often stand behind them while they were working, touch their shoulders, and insist on handshakes.
The employee had also asked one of the complainants to remove her jacket to give measurements for an overcoat, despite her already telling him what size she wanted.
The employee claimed that he was required to check the employees’ work without disturbing them and had therefore stood behind them. He denied any intent to sexually harass the women and said he needed the measurement in centimeters. However, the court noted that the employee’s actions had caused a feeling of embarrassment and discomfort in the minds of the complainants.
The Madras High Court’s judgment is a significant milestone in the fight against workplace harassment. It emphasizes the importance of creating a safe and respectful work environment for women and highlights the need for employers to take proactive steps to prevent sexual harassment. As the court noted,
“It is the fundamental discipline and understanding with which the employees of different gender are expected to interact with each other where decency is the yardstick and nothing else”.
Case Title – HCL vs N Parthasarathy
Read the Judgement here:
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE