[ad_1]
The court was hearing a petition by an IRS Class of 2010 officer, Sohail Malik, who challenged a notice of a meeting issued by the Internal Complaints Committee after a complaint was filed by an IAS officer alleging he sexually harassed her. (Getty Images)
Chief Justices C Hari Shankar and Justice Manoj Jain said that gender equality in every aspect of life is a constitutional imperative and the work environment is required to be as safe and secure for women as it is for men.
The Delhi High Court recently ruled that there was “absolutely nothing” to limit the scope of the Sexual Harassment at Work (Prevention, Prohibition and Redress) Act 2013 in cases where a female employee is sexually harassed in her office or department or where the offender works elsewhere.
Noting that in an era when women are equal to men in every professional achievement, there can be no compromise on the aims of the PoSH Act, the divisional panel comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Manoj Jain said gender equality in every aspect of life It is a constitutional necessity and the work environment should be as safe and secure for women as it is for men.
“For a woman to fear that her safety may be endangered or endangered in the workplace is therefore repugnant to our constitutional morals,” the court said.
The authority also said that any interpretation that would weaken or defeat the purpose of the legislation, which is to ensure a safe working environment for women, should therefore be adamantly avoided.
The court was hearing a petition by a batch 2010 officer of the Indian Revenue Service (IRS), Sohail Malik, who challenged a notice of meeting issued by the Internal Complaints Commission (ICC) after a complaint was filed by the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) that he alleged sexually harassed her.
Malik first approached the Central Administrative Court, Main Stand, New Delhi. However, the CAT rejected his petition. After that, apply to the Supreme Court.
Malik’s lawyer confirmed that he works with the complainant in separate departments and that the ICC under one department cannot conduct an investigation under the SHW. He also emphasized that under Article 13 of the SHW Law, the ICC report must be sent to the employer in order to take subsequent action, if necessary, via disciplinary action.
It was alleged that the employer under section 2(g) would be the complainant’s department head, who would not exercise “any disciplinary control” over the petitioner.
“The ICC report will be unenforceable as no action can be taken on its basis,” the lawyer submitted. Furthermore, he said that for SHW to be applicable, the place of business where the complaint was filed and the location of the alleged sexual harasser must be the same.
The court said such an interpretation would harm the roots, spirit and philosophy of SHW law. However, there is some force in Bharadwaj’s contention that the court cannot rewrite the law, or provide reasons for negligence, and if the SHW law cannot be read to protect working women in one department of government from harassment by an officer or employee in another department, it may The court is forced to defer to the statue,” the court said.
The court held that SHW did not isolate men who sexually harassed women in offices other than those in which they themselves worked. “Having read Section 11(1), we agree with the Court that it has been learned in its conclusion that there is nothing in the said provision that would limit its application only to cases where the defendant, that is, the officer accused of sexual harassment, is the employee of the department who works in which the complainant,” the court said in its June 30 order.
Decisively, the Court upheld the CAT’s decision and refused to annul the ICC’s notice.
[ad_2]
