Complaint Within Limitation Period U/S 9(1) POSH Act: Calcutta HC Directs Local Committee To Conclude Assoc. Professor’s Sexual Harassment Case Against WBNUJS’s VC

The Calcutta High Court directed the local committee constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 i.e., POSH Act to conclude proceedings in a sexual harassment case of Associate Professor of WBNUJS (West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences) against its Vice Chancellor.

The said female Associate Professor filed a writ petition against the order of the local committee by which it rejected her complaint under POSH Act on the ground of limitation.

A Single Bench of Justice Kausik Chanda observed, “In the present case, the allegations made in the complaint clearly suggest that the circumstances of victimisation and detrimental treatment allegedly taken place between April, 2023 till December, 2023 have a nexus with the alleged sexual harassment of the petitioner between September, 2019 to April, 2023. Therefore, if the complaint is read as a whole, would lead to a conclusion that the same was within the period of limitation in terms of Section 9 (1) of the Act of 2013.”

The Bench noted that the local committee did not consider the incidents that allegedly took place after April, 2023 as “sexual harassment.”

Advocate Kallol Bose represented the petitioner while Advocates Sirsanya Bandopadhyay and Soumya Majumder represented the respondents.

In this case, the petitioner filed her complaint before the local committee on December 26, 2023, and after receiving the complaint, the local committee issued a notice under POSH Act upon the respondent Vice Chancellor, who subsequently filed his reply denying the allegations made against him by the petitioner. On March 5, 2024, the petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint and on the same date, the local committee rejected the complaint.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the committee failed to read the complaint in its proper perspective and misdirected itself in concluding that the complaint filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation, relying solely on the definition of “sexual harassment” as provided under Section 2(n) of POSH Act. It was further submitted that the local committee failed to take into consideration the definition of “sexual harassment” under Section 3(2). Being aggrieved by the order of the local committee, the petitioner was before the High Court.

The High Court in view of the above facts said, “In my view, the incidents alleged to have taken place between April, 2023 and December 21, 2023, suggest that the petitioner has been subjected to threat of detrimental treatment in her employment and respondent no.7 has created an intimidating, offensive and hostile work environment for her. … it is inconsequential whether the petitioner failed to explain the delay in filing the complaint in her application dated March 5, 2024.”

Furthermore, the Court observed that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and, therefore, the issue of limitation could not have been decided by the local committee at the threshold stage without evidence.

“The local committee, in deciding the issue of limitation, should accept the allegations made in the complaint at its face value. There is no occasion to examine the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint at the threshold stage. …. in my view, the order dated March 5, 2024, passed by the local committee is not sustainable and accordingly, the same is set aside with a direction upon the local committee to conclude the proceedings initiated on the complaint filed by the petitioner on merit in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013", it ordered.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the local committee.

Cause Title- X v. The State of West Bengal and Others

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Kallol Bose, Rohit Das, Kishwar Rahman, Sristi Roy, Divya J. Tekriwal, and Rishav Mazumder.

Respondents: Advocates Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Ritesh Kr. Ganguly, Soumya Majumder, Sanjukta Dutta, Kinnor Ghosh, Avik Ghatak, and Abhinav Rakshit.

Click here to read/download the Judgment