Mumbai: The Bombay high court has set aside an order against a bank employee for sexual harassment under the POSH Act as the alleged offence took place in a shared auto that does not fall under the definition of “workplace.” The share-auto was not a ride that was employer-arranged and hence doesn’t fall under the definition of workplace under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act (POSH).The internal committee of a company or an organisation can entertain a complaint of an aggrieved woman of being subjected to sexual harassment only at the “workplace”, said the HC ruling by Justices Suman Shyam and F P Pooniwalla. The banker had moved the HC against the decision.In March 2023, the bank employee was travelling to his office in BKC from Kurla railway station in a shared auto. He was in the middle seat between the complainant woman and another passenger. The ride was bumpy due to bad roads and at times, his left hand must have touched her bag which she carried on her right arm, his lawyer argued. She stopped the ride and allegedly abused him and “abruptly” sprayed pepper spray into his eyes, alleging that he touched her inappropriately, said his plea. A crowd gathered, the auto driver asked everyone to sit back and proceed to the destination. He said she claimed to be related to an ex-public servant and called him, the police, her colleagues to “come and hit” him. The police arrived, took him to the police station and registered a case of sexual harassment under the Indian Penal Code.The HC said it has not gone into merits of the controversy of whether he had sexually harassed her in the shared auto or not.She also lodged a complaint with the internal committee or IC of her company. The IC forwarded the complaint to his employer. A probe was held and the bank’s internal committee found him “guilty of sexual harassment” and recommended “action as per service rules” against him. The bank’s IC concluded that the shared auto ride was indeed ‘workplace,’ as it invoked Section 2(o)(v) of POSH Act. The section stated that any place visited by the employee arising out of or during employment, including transportation by the employer for undertaking the journey, would mean a “workplace”.His counsel Anand Pande said the IC has erred since the transportation ought to have been provided by the employer, which the auto was not. The HC said, “It can be seen that Section 2(o)(v) includes within the meaning of “workplace” transportation by the employer for undertaking a journey to any place visited by the employee arising out of or during the course of employment. Therefore, in order to fall within the meaning of “workplace”, the transportation has to be provided by the employer,” which the bench said was not the case in this matter. The IC had not jurisdiction to entertain her complaint and pass an order, since the alleged incident did not occur at a ‘workplace’, HC held.
