Case Title: DB Corp Ltd V. Shailja Naqvi & Ors.
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act/SHW Act) permits a victim to file an appeal against the investigation report within a reasonable amount of time, according to the Delhi High Court.
According to Justice C. Hari Shankar, appeals that may be requested to be filed under Section 18 of the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act would be subject to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which permits an extension of the stipulated term in certain circumstances.
"It would be completely antithetical and inimical to the scope and purpose of the SHW Act if a Court were to refuse to condone a delay of as little as 36 days in an alleged victim of sexual harassment preferring an appeal under Section 18 against the report of the inquiry committee. Such a delay – if properly explained – should, clearly, not stand in the way of the appeal of the alleged victim of sexual harassment being decided on merits, by the authority competent to do so," the Court observed.
According to Section 18 of the SWH Act, any individual who feels wronged by the inquiry committee's recommendations or by their non-implementation may choose to appeal to a court or tribunal in accordance with the service regulations that apply to them or in accordance with the legislation that applies. According to the Act, when an investigation is complete, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee must deliver a report of their findings to the employer or the District Officer within ten days of the investigation's conclusion.
According to the case's circumstances, the woman (Respondent No. 1) had accused Respondent No. 2 of sexually harassing her at work. The petitioner company's internal complaints committee received the complaint and cleared respondent number two of any wrongdoing in an inquiry report dated May 24, 2016. She subsequently appealed the findings to the knowledgeable Central Government Industrial Tribunal in accordance with Section 18 of the Act. The Industrial Tribunal excused the 36-day delay in filing the appeal in the contested ruling, dated March 3, 2022.
The petitioner corporation filed a legal challenge against the abovementioned judgement, using Article 227 of the Indian Constitution since it was offended by it. Whether the Industrial Tribunal may have excused the delay in filing the appeal under Section 18 of the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act was the issue that arose for the High Court to decide.
The petitioner corporation argued that because Section 18 of the Act does not contain a provision for forgiving delays and because Section 18(2) utilizes the word "must," the Tribunal was unable to excuse the delay in submitting the appeal.
"So scrutinized, it is clear that Section 18(2) of the SHW Act postulates a period of limitation, for filing an appeal under Section 18(1), not to be found in the Limitation Act. Equally, it is clear that no express or implied exclusion of the Limitation Act, and its provisions, is to be found anywhere in the SHW Act," the Court noted.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India Pvt. Ltd. was cited by the petitioner company in support of its position. The Court believed that this ruling addressed the question of whether it was acceptable to delay filing an application for a directive to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal to refer a legal issue arising from an order made under section 35-H of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to the High Court.
“Unlike the Central Excise Act, which specifically contemplated and provided for condonation of delay under other provisions, but did not so provide in Section 35-H, there is no provision at all in the SHW Act, providing for condonation of delay. In such circumstances, Hongo India cannot be treated as an authority which proscribes recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, where there is a delay in preferring an appeal under Section 18 of the SHW Act," the Court observed.
It added "The SHW Act is an ameliorative statute, intended to redress a serious social evil. It cannot be gainsaid that victims of sexual harassment at the workplace suffer untold trauma, mental, physical and spiritual."
The Court thus concurred with the Industrial Tribunal's findings that a victim of sexual harassment is still in a traumatised state and that it is unrealistic to expect her to come to court right away to seek appellate remedies.
However, the Court added "Having said that, it is clarified that these observations are only intended to justify the power of condonation of delay, which the learned IT has exercised. They do not, in any manner, amount to an expression of opinion, one way or the other, on the allegations of sexual harassment forming the subject matter of proceedings in the present case. They should not, therefore, influence the learned IT in taking a dispassionate view on the appeal filed by the respondent."
Upholding the impugned order, the Court accordingly dismissed the plea.