Sexual harassment: Madras High Court upholds ICC findings against IT firm employee

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has quashed an order of a Labour court, reversing the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee against a Service Delivery Manager of HCL Technologies Ltd, by holding that he was not given with fair opportunity of hearing and consequently set aside the sexual harassment complaints.

Justice R N Manjula quashed the order of the Principal Labour Court in Chennai, dated December 11, 2019 while allowing a petition from HCL Technologies Ltd., challenging the order.

According to the petitioner, N Parthasarathy was working as a Service Delivery Manager in HCL Technologies since the year 2016. Since the company received sexual harassment complaints from woman employees against Parsarathy, the ICC conducted an enquiry and found him guilty and made its recommendations. He was subsequently terminated from service.

Meanwhile aggrieved by the recommendations, he moved the labour court, which reversed the findings of ICC and set aside the sexual harassment complaints, the company added.

In her order passed on Wednesday, the judge said the ICC had rightly understood the scope and nature of the enquiry and adopted the right mode suiting to the purpose of enquiry. The panel struck a balance and the reasons recorded for arriving at the conclusion were also acceptable. "I do not find any valid reasons for interference with its report", the judge added.

The judge said the committee was also conscious of the fact Parsarathy stood in a supervisory capacity who was superior to the complainant women and ensured fairness by designing a type of enquiry which was suitable and appropriate to serve the interest of both the parties. But the above nuances were not properly appreciated by the Labour Court and it had set aside the inquiry report just because the CCTV footage was not given to him.

It has been already stated Parsarathy's act has caused a feeling of embarrassment and discomfort in the mind of complainants. He did not deny he was standing near the complainant but had justified that it was his duty to supervise the works of the complainant. So the CCTV footage and the visuals cannot help him to prove or disprove the intention. All that can be understood was how it was felt by the recipients who were the complainants, the judge added.

The judge said Parsarathy who has got his corporate experience should have known to execute his functions without making the women employees embarrassed or frightened due to his actions. The complainants did not state something in the air but have given details of the incidents and have also stated how they felt. If something was not received well and it was inappropriate and felt as an unwelcome behaviour affecting the other sex namely the women, no doubt it would fall under the definition of "sexual harassment", the judge added.

The judge said time and again it was held in several judgments of the Supreme Court that in disciplinary proceedings, especially those taken in pursuant to the charges of sexual harassment, the courts should not be carried away with insignificant discrepancies or hyper-technicalities and the appreciation should be comprehensive.