Union of India Citation v Banani Chattopadhyay - (2022) 1 HCC (Cal) 351 Court – High Court of Calcutta.

Facts of the Case –

The petitioner, Banani Chattopadhyay, was a Deputy Manager at Hindustan Cables Ltd. (HCL). She opted for voluntary retirement on 31.01.2017 following a decision to close down the company. After retirement, she was engaged on a temporary basis as a consultant and later as an advisor. She was released from

her temporary engagement on 30.04.2018. on 09.05.2018, she lodged a complaint of sexual harassment against Respondent 9 (allegedly the head of HCL), claiming the incidents began in the last quarter of 2016. An Internal Complaints Committee was constituted to investigate her complaint. The ICC submitted its report on 19.06.2018, concluding that the allegations were not proved. The petitioner filed a write petition challenging the ICC’s report and constitution.

Legal Issues:-

1. Whether the Internal Complaints Committee had jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint, or if it should have been referred to the Local Committee.

2. Whether the Internal Complaints Committee was properly constituted as per the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2013 .

Caselaw in focus

3. Whether the principles of natural justice were followed in the inquiry process. 

4. Whether the court can issue a writ of mandamus to reinstate the petitioner to her temporary advisory position.

Plaintiff’s Arguments:-

1. The petitioner argued that Respondent 9, being the head of HCL, was the “employer” according to the Act and therefore only the Local Committee had jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint.

2. The petitioner claimed that the Internal Complaints Committee was not constituted in accordance with Section 4(2) of the Act.

3. The petitioner alleged that the IC members were biased and not impartial due to Respondent 9’s high position in the company.

4. The petitioner argued that the principles of natural justice were violated as the petitioner did not get sufficient opportunity to prove her allegations.

Defendant’s Arguments:-

1. The respondent claimed that the writ petition had become infructuous as Respondent 9 had since retired.

2. The respondent argued that the writ petition in not maintainable, as an appeal under Section 18 of the Act lies against the recommendations of the IC.

Caselaw in focus

3. The respondent argued that HCL is a public sector enterprise managed by the Board of Directors so Respondent 9 cannot be considered the “employer” under the Act.

4. The respondent claimed that the IC was properly constituted and conducted the inquiry fairly.

Judgement Held –

The court dismissed the writ petition and held that the Board of Directors, not Respondent 9, was the “employer” under the Act. The court had held that the ICC was properly constituted and had the jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint. Further the court held that there was no violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities to present her case. Lastly, the court held that it cannot issue a writ of mandamus to reinstate the petitioner to her temporary advisory position. 

Legal Principles Established:-

1. In a public sector enterprise managed by a Board of Directors, the Board is considered the “employer” under the SHWW Act, 2013.

2. The ICC has jurisdiction to inquire into sexual harassment complaints against high ranking officials who were not considered the “employer” under the Act.

3. Section 4(2) of the Act, which provides the composition of the ICC, does not required the members to be of a rank higher than the respondent in the complaint.

4. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to reinstate an employee to a temporary position that was contractual in nature.