A Bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta of the Calcutta High Court ruled that the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (2013 Act) apply to school students.
Background
In the current matter, the Court was hearing an appeal against an order dated October 5, 2021, given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, allowing the respondent authorities to proceed with the summary trial relating to the petitioner's charges of sexual harassment.
The petitioner, a teacher by profession, was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in Nepal by the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on November 17, 1997. On February 15, 2020, the principal of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Ravangla, South Sikkim, submitted a formal complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of Ravangla Police Station, indicating that he had received multiple complaints from children alleging sexual harassment by the petitioner, later on, the total number of complaints were asserted to be 67.
Following this, the petitioner was arrested under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), but was released on bail by the concerned court. After this, the petitioner was suspended from the school for almost a year, till February 10, 2021. Furthermore, with the aid of using an order dated June 16, 2020, the petitioner became in addition knowledgeable that the faculty government had constituted a committee for accomplishing a precis trial for inquiring into the allegations levelled in opposition to him shelling out with the everyday disciplinary complaints in phrases of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
On appeal to the Court, it was contended that the allegation being sexual harassment should have been dealt with by Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). In response to this, respondents have alleged that the POSH act does not apply to school students.
Court Order
The Court placed reliance on the definition of "aggrieved woman" as provided under Section 2 (a) of the 2013 Act and accordingly ruled,
“As per Section 2 (a) an aggrieved woman means in relation to a workplace, a woman, of any age whether employed or not, who alleges to have been subjected to any act of sexual harassment by the respondent. That being so, the provisions of the Act squarely apply to the students of the school."
Regarding the suspension order of the petitioner which was extended from time to time, was observed to be liable to be quashed exceeding 90 days, as per the ruling in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India.
Of the Court of Justice, the committee formed by the school authorities, which defended a summary study, not as an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) in accordance with the provisions of the 2007 Act as an Internal Compression Committee (ICC).
"It is axiomatic that the committee so formed by the respondent school authorities cannot be termed as an internal complaints committee as envisaged under the provisions of Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. Though the committee was constituted in terms of the notification dated 20.12.1993 issued by Navadaya Vidyalaya Samiti, but, the committee dehors of the fundamental legal requirements under Section 4 of the Act, has now lost its statutory force", the Court underscored.
The court overturned the suspension order and the preliminary investigation. The school authorities have been instructed to allow the petitioner to return to work within one month and to pay him any arrears of wages within two months of his return.
Case Details
Case Title: Pawan Kumar Niroula v. Union of India
Bench: Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
