Extracting work is not sexual harassment: Madras high court

CHENNAI: Woman employees cannot be allowed to misuse the Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, and harass someone with an ‘exaggerated or non-existent allegations’, the Madras high court has said.
“Every office has to maintain a certain decorum...The administrative head or the chief has every right to extract work and he/she has his/her own discretion and prerogatives.If a woman employee is discriminated against due to her inefficiency or for any other official reasons, the recourse for her is not the one taken by this complainant,” a division bench of Justice M Sathyanarayanan and Justice R Hemalatha.

Though the Act is intended to have an equal standing for women at the workplace and to have a cordial workplace in which their dignity and self-respect are protected, women employees cannot be allowed to go scot-free without completing their assignments, said the judges. Referring to the present case, the judges said: “It gives an appearance that instructing a woman employee to do something officially or even scolding a woman employee itself is sexual harassment.”
Observing that a solitary allegation of intemperate language against a woman employee does not constitute an offence under the law against sexual harassment of women at workplaces, the bench quashed a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order against V Natarajan, deputy registrar of trademarks and GI, Chennai, saying the tribunal had erred in arriving at the decision. The case relates to a woman officer’s complaint dated December 2, 2013, to the registrar and controller general of trademarks and GI, patents and design, about the ‘high-handedness’ of Natarajan and the ‘hurt to her self-respect due to his arrogant behaviour’.
The registrar constituted an internal complaints committee on sexual harassment at the workplace. Later she lodged another complaint narrating many incidents about the ‘rude behaviour’ of Natarajan. In this complaint she mentioned “sexual harassment” several times. She also wrote a complaint to the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women saying the internal committee may not render justice.
The district social welfare officer, who conducted the inquiry, found a prima facie case was made out under Section 3(2)(iii)(iv)(v) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The CAT, petitioned by the woman challenging the formation of ICC, ruled that a complaint against him can be probed only by a Local Committee. Assailing the findings, Natarajan moved the high court.
The bench quashed both the orders and found several procedural violations, such as non-serving of copies to Natarajan, in the proceedings. It then went through the complaints written by the woman official to various authorities and said: “The original complaint dated December 2, 2013 was generic in nature. It elaborated upon how Natarajan was authoritative and biased in his action and decisions. This is in sharp contrast to the written complaint dated February 17, 2016. The latter, though did not mention the date and sequence of events, talked about physical advances made by Natarajan and also his lewd remarks on her physical appearance. While the original complaint does not even give an iota of what is stated in the latter, the committee concluded that there is a prima facie case. One complaint repeatedly mentions the word ‘sexual harassment’ without describing it.”
The bench said: “The complainant, it appears, made a futile attempt to settle her personal score with the petitioner (Natarajan).”