Bombay High Court Gives Relief to SBI Employee, Says Shared Autorickshaw is Not a Workplace Under POSH Act
The Bombay High Court has set aside the order passed by the State Bank of India’s (SBI) Internal Committee (IC) against an SBI employee accused of sexual harassment. The court ruled that the Internal Committee did not have the legal authority to investigate the complaint because the alleged incident took place in a shared public autorickshaw, which is not considered a “workplace” under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
However, the High Court made it clear that it has not decided whether the allegations of sexual harassment are true or false. The judgment only deals with whether SBI’s Internal Committee had the jurisdiction to conduct the inquiry. You can download PDF of order copy given at last.
Background of the Case
The petitioner has been working with the State Bank of India (SBI) for the last 14 years. He used to travel daily from Navi Mumbai to his office at Bandra-Kurla Complex (BKC). Every day, he travelled by local train to Kurla Railway Station and then took a shared autorickshaw to reach the SBI office.
On 24 March 2023, the employee boarded a shared autorickshaw from Kurla Railway Station. Two other passengers also boarded the vehicle, including a woman who later filed the complaint. According to the employee, the autorickshaw was overcrowded because three passengers were seated on the back seat. He claimed that due to the bad condition of the road and the bumpy ride, his left hand may have accidentally touched the woman’s bag.
What Happened During the Journey?
According to the employee, the woman suddenly stopped the autorickshaw near the American Embassy at Bandra-Kurla Complex and accused him of touching her inappropriately. The employee claimed that the woman abused him, sprayed pepper spray into his eyes and created a scene by calling nearby people.
The autorickshaw driver then drove both passengers to One BKC. The woman allegedly called her colleagues and also informed the police. The police reached the spot and took the SBI employee to BKC Police Station. A criminal case was registered against him under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with sexual harassment.
Complaint Before Internal Committee
Apart from filing a police complaint, the woman also submitted a complaint to the Internal Committee of the company where she worked as a chef. Her company’s Internal Committee forwarded the complaint to SBI. SBI’s Internal Committee then started an inquiry against its employee under the POSH Act.
After completing the inquiry, SBI’s Internal Committee found the employee guilty of sexual harassment and recommended disciplinary action against him under the bank’s service rules. The employee challenged this decision before the Bombay High Court.
What Did the Employee Argue?
The employee argued that the alleged incident took place in a shared public autorickshaw and not at a workplace. He referred to Section 2(o)(v) of the POSH Act, which states that a workplace includes transportation provided by the employer for an employment-related journey.
According to him, the autorickshaw was public transport and was neither arranged nor provided by SBI or by the woman’s employer. Therefore, the incident did not occur at a workplace under the POSH Act. He argued that since the incident did not happen at a workplace, SBI’s Internal Committee had no jurisdiction to investigate the complaint or pass any order against him.
What Was SBI’s Stand?
SBI argued before the High Court that the definition of “workplace” under the POSH Act should be interpreted broadly. The bank submitted that the Internal Committee had the authority to receive the complaint and decide during the inquiry whether the alleged incident took place at a workplace. According to SBI, the committee had acted within its powers while conducting the inquiry.
What Did the High Court Say?
The Bombay High Court examined the provisions of the POSH Act, especially the definition of “workplace” under Section 2(o)(v). The court observed that the law includes transportation provided by the employer for undertaking a journey connected with employment.
However, the judges noted that the shared autorickshaw used by the SBI employee was a public mode of transport. It had not been arranged or provided by either SBI or the woman’s employer. Therefore, the court held that such public transport does not fall within the definition of a workplace under the POSH Act. The court said that only employer-provided transportation is covered by this provision.
Internal Committee Had No Jurisdiction
The High Court held that an Internal Committee can investigate a complaint under the POSH Act only if the alleged sexual harassment took place at a workplace as defined under the law. Since the alleged incident occurred in a shared public autorickshaw, the SBI Internal Committee had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or conduct an inquiry.
The court also rejected SBI’s argument that the committee could first investigate the complaint and later decide whether the place was a workplace. According to the judges, the committee must first determine whether it has jurisdiction before conducting any inquiry.
High Court Sets Aside SBI’s Order
Based on these findings, the Bombay High Court quashed the order passed by SBI’s Internal Committee on 29 August 2023. The court allowed the employee’s writ petition and cancelled the disciplinary findings made by the Internal Committee.
The High Court clarified that its judgment should not be treated as a finding on the allegations of sexual harassment. The judges said they had not examined whether the employee had actually committed sexual harassment.
The judgment only decides that SBI’s Internal Committee did not have the legal authority to investigate the complaint under the POSH Act because the alleged incident did not occur at a workplace. The court also made it clear that the allegations can still be examined in other appropriate legal proceedings, including the criminal case already registered against the employee.
Click here to download Court Order Copy (This court order pdf is available only to premium users. Click here to join premium)
