The Bombay High Court observed that the ICC cannot entertain a complaint if the alleged harassment did not occur at the ‘workplace’. File
| Photo Credit: The Hindu
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a shared auto-rickshaw used by an employee for commuting to work does not constitute a ‘workplace’ under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH), unless the transport is provided by the employer.
The High Court, in its June 22 order, set aside the findings of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) that had held a State Bank of India (SBI) employee guilty of sexual harassment based on an incident that occurred during such travel.
The petitioner, an employee of SBI, was travelling to his office in a shared auto-rickshaw on March 24, 2023. Respondent 3 was also a passenger in the vehicle. The petitioner stated that any physical contact with Respondent 3 resulted from overcrowding in the vehicle. Respondent 3 interpreted this contact as intentional, leading to an altercation. She used pepper spray on the petitioner and called the police.
The police detained the petitioner and registered a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondent 3 also filed a complaint under the PoSH Act with the ICC.
The ICC found the petitioner guilty and recommended disciplinary action. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order. The court had previously directed that no final order be passed in the appeal without its permission.
A Division Bench of Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla and Justice Suman Shyam examined whether the incident occurred at a ‘workplace’ under Section 2(o) of the PoSH Act. The court noted that the petitioner was travelling to his office. However, the transport was not provided by his employer or by Respondent 3’s employer. The court further stated that such transportation does not fall under the definition of ‘workplace’ as per Section 2(o)(v) of the POSH Act.
The Bench held that the alleged incident did not occur at a ‘workplace’. The court observed that the ICC cannot entertain a complaint if the alleged harassment did not occur at the ‘workplace’.
Consequently, the ICC lacked jurisdiction to entertain Respondent 3’s complaint. The court declared the ICC’s order unsustainable, setting it aside.
The court clarified that it had not made a determination on whether the petitioner sexually harassed Respondent 3. This matter remains open for adjudication in appropriate proceedings.
The Bench opined that the ICC must first ascertain whether an alleged incident occurred at a ‘workplace’ under Section 2(o) of the PoSH Act. Only an affirmative answer would grant the ICC jurisdiction to conduct a further inquiry.
Published – June 24, 2026 07:31 am IST
