A shared autorickshaw used by employees for their daily commute cannot automatically be treated as a “workplace” under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, the Bombay High Court has ruled while granting relief to a State Bank of India (SBI) employee who had been found guilty of sexual harassment by the bank’s Internal Committee (IC).
A Division Bench comprising Justices Suman Shyam and Firdosh Pooniwalla held that the key issue before it was not whether the allegation of sexual harassment was true, but whether the Internal Committee possessed the legal authority to investigate and adjudicate the complaint in the first place.
The Court observed that an Internal Committee established under the POSH Act can exercise jurisdiction only when the alleged misconduct occurs at a “workplace” as defined by the statute. In the present case, the incident was alleged to have taken place inside a shared autorickshaw during a commute to work. Since the vehicle was neither arranged nor provided by the employer of either party, it could not be treated as a workplace under the Act.
The judges noted that merely travelling to the office does not convert a privately hired mode of transport into an extension of the workplace. Consequently, the alleged incident fell outside the scope of the POSH framework.
The ruling came on a petition filed by Siddhesh Satpute, an SBI employee with over fourteen years of service. He had challenged an August 2023 decision of the bank’s Internal Committee, which had concluded that he was guilty of sexual harassment.
The complaint stemmed from an incident on March 24, 2023. A woman alleged that Satpute had inappropriately touched her while both were travelling in a shared autorickshaw from Kurla railway station to the Bandra Kurla Complex. Satpute denied the accusation, contending that any contact, if it occurred at all, was accidental during the ride.
While the Internal Committee accepted the woman’s complaint and proceeded against Satpute, the High Court found that the committee had overlooked a foundational question—whether it had jurisdiction over the incident.
Setting aside the committee’s order dated August 29, 2023, the Court emphasised that such jurisdictional issues must be determined at the outset before a full-fledged inquiry is undertaken.
Importantly, the Bench clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the truthfulness of the allegations or the conduct of the parties. The judgment was confined solely to the question of jurisdiction under the POSH Act.
Leaving the substantive dispute open, the Court observed that any further action regarding the allegations could be pursued through appropriate legal proceedings in accordance with law.
