Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2020 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 890 - SUPREME COURTStriking a legal balance between the State-citizen intercourse in the context of relationship of an employer and employee - Compulsory retirement of the Appellant - seeking reinstatement of the Appellant back in service - sexual harassment in the workplace - inducing to join sex racket running inside the organisation - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the Petitioner's complaints of sexual harassment were met with incidents showcasing procedural ignorance and casual attitude of her seniors in the department. As regards the press note dated 19.8.2008, this Court had taken strong exception to the unwarranted attacks on her psychological status and quashed the note in its entirety vide order dated 15.12.2014 for being violative of the Petitioner's dignity, reputation and privacy. Despite such terse finding regarding violation of fundamental rights, no relief of compensation was given to the Petitioner and presumably not pursued by her at that time. The scheme of the 2013 Act, Vishaka Guidelines and Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) predicates that a non-hostile working environment is the basic limb of a dignified employment. The approach of law as regards the cases of sexual harassment at workplace is not confined to cases of actual commission of acts of harassment, but also covers situations wherein the woman employee is subjected to prejudice, hostility, discriminatory attitude and humiliation in day to day functioning at the workplace. Taking any other view would defeat the purpose of the law. A priori, when inaction or procrastination (intentionally or otherwise) is meted out in response to the attempt of setting the legal machinery in motion, what is put to peril is not just the individual cries for the assistance of law but also the foundational tenets of a society governed by the Rule of law, thereby threatening the larger public interests - To wit, time taken to process the stated complaint and improper constitution of the first Complaints Committee (intended or unintended) in violation of the Vishaka Guidelines, constitute an appalling conglomeration of undignified treatment and violation of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner, more particularly Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. In the present case, the Petitioner had faced exceedingly insensitive and undignified circumstances due to improper handling of her complaint of sexual harassment. Regardless of the outcome of the inquiry into the stated complaint, the fundamental rights of the Petitioner had been clearly impinged. Taking overall view of the circumstances - this is a fit case to award compensation to the Petitioner for the stated violation of her right to life and dignity, quantified at ₹ 1,00,000/- - Had it been a case of allegations in the stated complaint of the Petitioner been substantiated in the duly conducted inquiry (which the Petitioner had failed to do), it would have been still worst and accentuated violation of her fundamental rights warranting suitable (higher) compensation amount. Petition disposed off with following directions: (i) We hold that Rule 135 of the 1975 Rules is valid and does not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality. Further, the expression "may" occurring in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 135 must be read as "shall", for giving true effect to the object of the provision. (ii) The impugned order of compulsory retirement passed Under Rule 135 against the Appellant/Petitioner is valid and legal and the decision of the High Court in this regard stands confirmed subject, however, to modification thereof to the extent indicated in the present judgment. (iii) The grant of pension to the Appellant/Petitioner herein shall be computed in accordance with the date of notional superannuation as directed by the High Court and not from the date of actual compulsory retirement and additional sum in that regard, if any, be paid to her within six weeks from today. (iv) The Respondent(s) (Union of India) is directed to pay compensation quantified at ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the Appellant/Petitioner herein for violation of her fundamental rights to life and dignity-as a result of the improper handling of her complaint of sexual harassment. The compensation amount be paid to the Appellant/Petitioner by way of direct transfer in her bank account or be deposited in this Court and in either case, within six weeks from today. (v) The Appellant/Petitioner is granted time to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of her official quarter for a period of three months from today. Further, no penal house rent charges be levied or recovered from the Petitioner up to next three months from today.
|