The Bombay High Court has set aside the findings of State Bank of India’s internal committee against an employee accused of sexual harassment, ruling that a shared autorickshaw used for commuting to work does not qualify as a “workplace” under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
A division bench of Justices Suman Shyam and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla held that the bank's internal committee had no jurisdiction to investigate the complaint because the alleged incident occurred in a shared autorickshaw that was not provided by the employer, as per a report by Bar and Bench.
The court clarified that it was not deciding whether the allegations were true or false. It only examined whether the complaint could be investigated under the POSH Act.
Background of the Case
The SBI employee regularly traveled from Kurla railway station to Bandra-Kurla Complex in a shared autorickshaw. On March 24, 2023, he and a woman traveling in the same autorickshaw got into a dispute. The woman alleged that he had sexually harassed her during the ride. The matter escalated, and a criminal case was also registered against the employee.
The woman later filed a complaint before her company's internal committee, which forwarded it to SBI's internal committee. After conducting an inquiry, SBI's internal committee found the employee guilty of sexual harassment and recommended action against him. The employee challenged the decision before the Bombay High Court, arguing that the alleged incident had occurred in public transport and not at a workplace covered by the POSH Act.
Court's Ruling
The high court agreed with the employee and examined the definition of "workplace" under Section 2(o) of the POSH Act. The bench noted that the law includes within the definition of workplace "transportation by the employer" for undertaking a journey related to employment. However, the autorickshaw in the present case was a public mode of transport and had not been arranged by either employer.
"Therefore, in order to fall within the meaning of 'workplace', the transportation has to be provided by the employer," the court observed. "Such transportation would not fall within the definition of a 'workplace' as defined by Section 2(o)(v). For the said reason, in our view, the alleged incident has not taken place at a 'workplace'," it further added.
The bench concluded that SBI's internal committee had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and accordingly, the court quashed the internal committee's order. At the same time, the judges made it clear that they had not examined the merits of the allegations. The court said it had "not gone into the merits of the controversy" and left that issue open to be dealt with in appropriate legal proceedings.
