Today, the Gauhati High Court examined the scope of an employer’s disciplinary authority in cases arising under workplace sexual harassment law, particularly where the parties had opted for conciliation before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). The Court was called upon to decide whether conciliation under the statutory framework completely bars an employer from initiating departmental proceedings based on service rules.
The dispute arose from a complaint of sexual harassment made by a woman officer against a senior official of the Airports Authority of India. The complaint was placed before the Internal Complaints Committee. During the ICC proceedings, both parties expressed concern over workplace disturbance and chose to resolve the matter through conciliation. The conciliation resulted in an arrangement whereby the parties agreed not to work in close proximity.
Owing to mental distress, the complainant did not press for a full inquiry before the ICC. The Committee thereafter recorded that evidence was lacking. Subsequently, the complainant objected to this conclusion and produced additional material in the form of a screenshot alleging objectionable conduct. The ICC declined to reopen the matter, citing the statutory bar on further inquiry after conciliation.
Faced with the new material, the employer initiated independent departmental proceedings under applicable service rules. These proceedings were challenged before a Single Judge, who quashed the departmental inquiry and also directed expunging of the ICC’s observation regarding lack of evidence.
The employer argued that the Single Judge had exceeded writ jurisdiction by interfering with disciplinary action based on service rules. It was contended that the statutory bar under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act applies only to further inquiry by the ICC and does not restrict an employer from acting on independent material to ensure workplace safety.
On the other hand, the charged officer relied on the conciliation provision to argue that once a settlement had been reached, no further proceedings direct or indirect could be initiated in respect of the same allegations.
The Division Bench undertook a close reading of the conciliation provision and observed that the statutory embargo is limited in its scope. The Court noted that the law expressly bars further inquiry by the Internal Committee or Local Committee after conciliation, but does not extend that prohibition to the employer’s disciplinary jurisdiction.
The Court further observed that the sexual harassment legislation is a minimum protective statute intended to ensure safe working environments. It does not override or extinguish an employer’s obligation under service rules to inquire into misconduct. Reading the conciliation provision as a complete bar, the Bench cautioned, would undermine the statutory duty of employers to maintain workplace safety. At the same time, the Court found no fault with the expunging of the ICC’s observation that evidence was lacking, since the inquiry had remained incomplete due to the conciliation process.
The Court partly allowed the appeal. It set aside the portion of the Single Judge’s order that had quashed the departmental proceedings, holding that such proceedings were legally maintainable even after conciliation before the ICC. However, it upheld the expunging of the ICC’s remark regarding lack of evidence. The Court directed that the departmental inquiry be resumed in accordance with service rules, ensuring full opportunity of defence, while keeping all issues on merits open.
Case Title: Airports Authority of India & Ors. v. Praveen
Case No.: WA NO.149 OF 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Hon’ble Mr Justice Arun Dev Choudhury
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. R. Dubey and Adv. A. B. Kayastha.
Counsel for the Respondent: Sr. Adv. R. Sharma assisted by Adv. P. Phukan.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
