18 June 2026 Legal Updates

POSH Act | ICC Can't Adjudicate Sexual Harassment Complaint Over Incident In Transport Not Provided By Employer: Bombay High Court

Recently the Bombay High Court clarified that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (POSH) Act, 2013, does not extend to incidents occurring in public transport during a routine commute. The Court held that an employer’s Internal Committee (IC) has no legal authority to punish an employee for conduct occurring in a space over which the employer has no control or provision.

Case Details

1. Case Title:

•  Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute v. State Bank of India & Ors.

2. Court: 

• Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)

3. Judge(s):

•  Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla

4. Stage of Proceedings:

• Writ Petition challenging a disciplinary order and an IC report.

5. Statutory Provisions: 

• POSH Act (2013) – Section 2(o), Section 9; IPC – Section 354A.

Facts of the Case

• The Parties: The Petitioner was a long-term employee of SBI. Respondent No. 3 (the complainant) worked as a Chef at a different private company.
• The Incident: On March 24, 2023, both were commuting to their respective offices in the Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC). They were passengers in a public shared autorickshaw taken from Kurla Station.
• The Conflict: The rickshaw was overcrowded (three passengers in the back). The Petitioner claimed that due to a bumpy road and the cramped space, his hand accidentally brushed against the complainant’s bag.
• The Altercation: Respondent No. 3 alleged deliberate physical harassment. She used pepper spray on the Petitioner, stopped the vehicle near the American Embassy, and called the police.
• Legal Action: An FIR was registered against the Petitioner under Section 354A IPC. Simultaneously, the complainant filed a POSH complaint with her employer, which was forwarded to SBI.
• The IC Decision: SBI’s Internal Committee conducted an inquiry, found the Petitioner guilty of "sexual harassment," and recommended strict disciplinary action under bank service rules.

Issues Raised

• Jurisdictional Validity: Does an Internal Committee have the legal right to adjudicate a complaint if the incident occurred outside the physical or virtual boundaries of the employer's control?
• Definition of Workplace: Does a "shared public autorickshaw" fall under the definition of a "workplace" as per Section 2(o)(v) of the POSH Act?
• The "Employer Provided" Condition: Is the commute protected under the Act if the employee is using a mode of transport not organized by the company?

Contentions of the Petitioner

• Statutory Bar: The POSH Act is specific. Section 2(o)(v) defines a workplace journey as one involving "transportation provided by the employer."
• Lack of Control: SBI did not provide the rickshaw. It was a public service. Therefore, the "workplace" ended when the Petitioner left his home/station and began only when he reached the bank premises.
• Illegal Inquiry: Since the site of the incident was not a "workplace," the entire IC proceeding was coram non judice (without jurisdiction).

Contentions of the State Bank of India (Respondent)

• Protective Intent: The bank argued that the Act is meant to protect women from harassment by colleagues or professionals during their workday, including the journey to the office.
• Broad Interpretation: They contended that since the Petitioner was in the "course of employment" (on his way to work), the bank had a duty to investigate his conduct toward a woman.

Court's Reasoning & Key Findings

1. The "Provided by Employer" Test

• The Court analyzed the wording of Section 2(o)(v) of the POSH Act. The law states that a workplace includes:
• "any place visited by the employee arising out of or during the course of employment including transportation provided by the employer for undertaking such journey."
• The Court ruled that the phrase "provided by the employer" is a mandatory condition. If the employer does not provide the vehicle, the journey is considered a private act of commuting and not an extension of the workplace.

2. Public vs. Private Space

• The Court observed that a shared rickshaw is a public utility. If the law were to include every public bus, train, or rickshaw in the definition of "workplace," the jurisdiction of an ICC would become limitless, leading to legal chaos. The employer cannot be held responsible for, nor can they regulate, behavior in a space they do not own or manage.

3. Procedural Sequence

The Court held that for an ICC to function, three criteria must be met:

• The victim must be an "aggrieved woman."
• The accused must be an employee.
• The incident must occur at a "workplace."
• Since the third condition failed, the ICC had no business conducting a trial.

4. Impact of the Criminal Case

• The Court noted that a criminal case (FIR) was already ongoing. It clarified that while the Petitioner could be tried in a criminal court for his actions in a public place, he could not be disciplined by his employer under a law specifically designed for workplace safety.

Final Verdict

• Order Quashed: The High Court set aside the IC report and the bank's order finding the Petitioner guilty.
• Relief: The Petitioner's service record is to be cleared of the POSH findings.
• Caveat: The Court explicitly stated it was not deciding if the Petitioner was "innocent" of the touching; it was only deciding that the IC had no power to proceed against him. The criminal trial under the IPC will proceed independently.

Legal Principles Established

• Commuting Boundary: A routine commute via public transport is not a "workplace" journey unless the employer has specifically arranged that transport.
• Definition Primacy: Remedial statutes like the POSH Act must be interpreted broadly to protect victims, but they cannot override the specific definitions set by the Parliament in the text of the law.
• ICC Jurisdiction: An ICC must first determine if the location of an incident is a "workplace" before proceeding with the merits of a sexual harassment complaint.

The Relevant Statutory Provisions

• Section 2(o) POSH Act: Provides a list of locations (offices, hospitals, sports complexes, etc.) that qualify as workplaces.
• Section 11 POSH Act: Mandates that an inquiry into a complaint can only proceed "subject to the provisions of Section 10" (which deals with workplace-related incidents).