The Bombay High Court ruled that alleged sexual harassment during travel in shared public transport not arranged by an employer does not fall within the definition of a “workplace” under the POSH Act. Consequently, such incidents cannot be examined through the Act’s workplace harassment framework.
The Bombay High Court held that sexual harassment alleged to have occurred during shared public transport that is not provided by an employer does not come within the definition of a workplace under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
A Division Bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla set aside an order passed by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of the State Bank of India (SBI).
The ICC had found an employee guilty of sexual harassment connected to an incident said to have taken place in a shared auto-rickshaw.
The court concluded that because the transport was not provided by the employer, the ICC had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute had been working with SBI for about 14 years. To reach his office in Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC) from Navi Mumbai, Satpute travelled by local train to Kurla station, and then took a shared auto-rickshaw to BKC.
On 24 March 2023, he boarded a shared auto-rickshaw at Kurla station. Due to limited space, the driver seated three passengers in the back, resulting in uncomfortable seating. Satpute was travelling with Respondent No. 3, who worked as a chef, and another passenger.
Satpute alleged that because of the bumpy road conditions, his left hand occasionally made contact with Respondent No. 3’s bag. Respondent No. 3 then stopped the vehicle near the American Embassy, used abusive language, and accused Satpute of improperly touching her chest. She allegedly sprayed pepper spray in his eyes. After a crowd gathered, the driver took them to a different location, where Respondent No. 3 contacted her colleagues and the police.
Satpute was later taken to the BKC Police Station, and a case was registered against him under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code.
Respondent No. 3 also lodged a POSH complaint with the internal committee of her employer. That complaint was forwarded to SBI, which referred it to its own ICC (Respondent No. 2). Following an inquiry, SBI’s ICC issued an order on 29 August 2023, holding Satpute guilty of sexual harassment and recommending disciplinary action under SBI service rules.
Satpute filed an appeal against the ICC order. He also filed a writ petition before the High Court, challenging the ICC’s jurisdiction.
Counsel Mr. Anand Pande argued that the ICC can only act under POSH if the incident occurred at a workplace. He relied on Section 2(o)(v) of the Act, stating that workplace includes transportation to a place visited during employment only when such transportation is provided by the employer.
Since the auto-rickshaw used here was a shared public mode of transport and was not employer-provided, the petitioner argued that the incident could not qualify as occurring at a workplace. Therefore, the ICC order was said to be void for lack of authority.
Counsel for SBI (Mr. Abhijit Joshi, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) submitted that the ICC’s broad understanding of “workplace” was correct and did not justify interference. He argued that under Sections 2(a), 9, and 11 of the POSH Act, the ICC had the power to receive the complaint and then decide whether the incident was connected to the employee’s workplace meaning the jurisdictional issue did not invalidate the ICC proceedings.
The court noted it was willing to entertain the writ petition notwithstanding the pending domestic appeal because the petitioner raised a pure jurisdictional issue.
The court examined the POSH definition of workplace under Section 2(o)(v), which covers any place visited by an employee during or arising out of employment, including transportation by the employer for undertaking such journey.
Interpreting the provision strictly, the Bench held,
“Therefore, in order to fall within the meaning of “workplace”, the transportation has to be provided by the employer.”
Applying this to the facts, the court observed that Satpute and Respondent No. 3 were travelling together in a shared public auto-rickshaw from Kurla station to BKC, and that the transport was not provided by either employer.
Hence, the court found the incident did not occur at a workplace under the Act.
The court also rejected SBI’s position that the ICC could first entertain the complaint and only later decide whether the incident fell within the workplace definition.
The Bench further stated,
“In our view, the law would mandate such an Internal Committee to first decide the jurisdictional question whether the alleged sexual harassment has taken place at a “workplace” and only if the answer to that question is in the affirmative, would the Internal Committee have jurisdiction to conduct a further enquiry in the matter.”
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the ICC’s order dated 29 August 2023. Importantly, the court clarified that it did not assess the truth or merits of the allegations whether Satpute actually sexually harassed Respondent No. 3 leaving that question open to be determined in the appropriate proceedings. No order was made as to costs.
Click Here to Read More Reports On the POSH Act