Sasmita Majari Satapathy vs. State Of Orissa

Held

The Court held that Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, mandates the constitution of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) by every employer. It further noted that Section 5 allows the appropriate government to notify a District Officer to exercise powers, and Section 6 requires the District Officer to constitute a Local Complaints Committee (LCC) in districts to receive complaints from establishments where an ICC has not been constituted or if the complaint is against the employer. The Court found that the absence of an ICC necessitated the formation of an LCC. Therefore, the Court directed the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Ganjam, to constitute a Local Complaints Committee within ten days to receive complaints of sexual harassment from establishments lacking an ICC. The petitioner was to be informed of this formation and could file her complaint before the LCC. If filed, the complaint would be forwarded to the District Committee or ICC for consideration after affording a hearing to all parties. The prayer regarding investigation into a specific police case was left for the petitioner to pursue in the appropriate forum.

Facts

The petitioner, a lady teacher at Project Upper Primary School, Lachhamanpalli, Aska, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa. Her grievance was that her complaint of sexual harassment against the Headmaster of her school, filed with the Block Education Officer, Aska, was pending without any action. She sought a direction to inquire into the matter under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, and to initiate departmental proceedings against the Headmaster. The School and Mass Education Department's Standing Counsel submitted that no separate Internal Complaints Committee had been formed as per Section 4 of the Act, but a District Level Committee was looking into such complaints.

Key Issues

1. Whether the absence of a properly constituted Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, vitiates the process of addressing complaints of sexual harassment at the workplace, and if so, what is the recourse for aggrieved employees? The petitioner argued that her complaint was not being addressed due to the lack of an ICC. The State contended that a District Level Committee was handling such complaints, implying an alternative mechanism. The Court had to determine if this district-level mechanism was a sufficient substitute for the statutory requirement of an ICC or a Local Complaints Committee (LCC) as outlined in the Act. The core issue revolved around the proper implementation of the Act and the redressal mechanism for victims of sexual harassment in workplaces where an ICC is not formed.