Details of the Complaint
An employee (hereafter referred to as the complainant) of an Institute filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Madras to issue a Writ of Mandamus to the Institute to reconstitute an Internal Committee as per the provision of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) and conduct an inquiry of sexual harassment against the Dean of the Institute.
The Honorable Court, ordering in favor of the petitioner, directed the Institute to constitute an IC and initiate action thereafter in accordance with the POSH Act.
The Dean of the Institute (hereafter referred to as the petitioner), who was the respondent in the above-mentioned writ petition, filed a review petition in the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
Claims of the Petitioner
The petitioner requested the Honorable High Court to review the writ petition by the complainant on the following grounds:
- Disciplinary Proceedings are going on against the complainant for dereliction of duty and arrogant attitude. The complaint of sexual harassment filed by the complainant is an attempt to derail the inquiry on the complaints of misconduct against her and stop the disciplinary proceedings.
- The complainant has given a false complaint of sexual harassment.
- The petitioner also stated that an Internal Committee is already constituted by the petitioner to look into allegations of sexual harassment against the staff members. The said Committee is competent to look into the complaint by the complainant.
Read a judgement on the Improper Constitution of Internal Committee.
Judgement and Observations by the Court
Internal Committee Must be Reconstituted
The court passed the judgement that the Institute must reconstitute an Internal Committee in accordance with the POSH Act.
This being the factum to be considered by the first respondent in the writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that no further modification or clarification in required in these writ miscellaneous petitions and this Court expects the learned counsel for the petitioners to apprise this legal position to ensure appointment of appropriate committee in accordance with the Section 4 of the Act.
The Honorable High Court observed that since majority of the members of the Internal Committee are subordinates to the petitioner and working under his control, there will be a reasonable apprehension that the enquiry may be vitiated.
In the present case, the Chairperson appointed by proceedings dated 10.8.2010 is Dr. G.Subbulakshmi, MD, Professor & HOD of Anatomy. Except the sixth member who is a Social Welfare Officer, all other members in the committee are functioning under the control of the Dean of the I.R.T Perundrurai Medical College and Hospital, Perundurai, Perundurai Sanatorium, Erode District, against whom the complaint was made by the writ petitioner/first respondent herein. Therefore, all members in the committee are subordinates to the Dean against whom the allegations were made by the writ petitioner.
When the majority of six members out of seven members in the committee are subordinates of the Dean of the institution, who issued the order to constitute a committee, then, there will be a reasonable apprehension that the enquiry may be vitiated.
Honorable High Court further commented that the petitioner’s allegations about the misconduct by the complainant is not relevant when considering a sexual harassment complaint.
This apart, those grounds raised in respect of the alleged misconduct committed by the writ petitioner, cannot have any relevance in respect of the complaint given by the writ petitioner against the review petitioner. The complaint of sexual harassment has to be dealt with independently and in accordance with the Act. Simply, because the employee is facing some departmental proceedings, neither the competent authority nor the Court, shall brush aside the complaint of sexual harassment made by the woman staff of any institution. So also the review petitioner cannot try to escape from the clutches of the complaint made by the writ petitioner under the Sexual Harassment Act.
Thus, the statement of the review petitioner that the complaint under the Sexual Harassment Act, was preferred only to escape from the departmental proceedings, cannot be accepted and deserves no consideration at all.
The Court ordered that the review petition cannot be maintained since there is no error apparent on the fact of the record.
This Court is of the opinion that the review petitions are not maintainable either under Section 114 of CPC or under Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC for the reasons that review petitions can be maintained under any of the ingredients of the Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC and more importantly, when there is a mistake or an error apparent on the fact of the record.
The Review petitioner has not made out any single ground for reviewing the said judgement and there is no defect or error apparent on the face of the record. The review petitioner did not made out any ground, so as to attract the ingredients of Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Persion Devi and Ors v. Sumithra Devi & Ors [1997 (8) SCC 715], that reviewing a judgment on error apparent on the face of the record, is distinct from erroneous decisions.
An erroneous decision will not provide a cause for the petitioner to file the present Review Petition. Contrarily, order can be reviewed only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
Reference: Dr.M.Rajendran vs M.Daisyrani
Get answers and FREE consultations for all your POSH related queries. Click here to Join our ‘Not-for-profit’ LinkedIn group.
