Skip to main content

Madhya Pradesh High Court Clarifies Conciliation is Mandatory Under POSH Act Before Formal Inquiry

In a significant judgment reinforcing the principles of fairness and restorative justice under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Dr. Kali Charan Sabat vs. Union of India & Others (W.P. No. 10021/2024) has held that conciliation under Section 10 of the Act is mandatory before an Internal Committee (IC) proceeds with a formal inquiry, provided the complainant is open to conciliation.

The case arose when Dr. Kali Charan Sabat challenged the initiation of an inquiry by the Internal Committee without being given the opportunity for conciliation as envisaged under the POSH Act. The petitioner argued that Section 10 of the Act provides for a mechanism where, upon receipt of a complaint, the IC must offer conciliation to the aggrieved woman before resorting to a full-fledged inquiry. The failure to follow this mandatory step, according to the petitioner, was a violation of the statutory procedure.

The Court carefully examined the legislative intent behind the POSH Act, which aims not only to provide protection against sexual harassment but also to ensure that redressal mechanisms are sensitive, non-adversarial, and conducive to maintaining workplace harmony. The judges noted that Section 10 explicitly provides for the possibility of conciliation and that this process is not merely optional but a preliminary mandatory step, provided the complainant consents to it.

The Court further highlighted that conciliation under the POSH Act serves as an important tool for early resolution of workplace disputes, especially in cases where the complainant seeks an amicable settlement or wishes to avoid the trauma of a formal inquiry. It was observed that the IC must inform the aggrieved woman of this right at the outset, and only upon her refusal or upon failure of conciliation should the formal inquiry commence under Section 11.

Importantly, the judgment underscores that conciliation cannot result in a monetary settlement but must focus on behavioral commitments, apologies, or other mutually agreeable terms that help rebuild trust and maintain dignity at the workplace. The Court warned that bypassing this essential step not only undermines the letter of the law but also risks causing unnecessary emotional distress to the parties involved.

This ruling has significant implications for employers, Internal Committees, and HR professionals. Organizations must ensure that their POSH policies and IC members are fully aware of this legal requirement. Failure to offer conciliation where appropriate could render inquiry proceedings invalid and expose the organization to legal challenges.

In conclusion, the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision in Dr. Kali Charan Sabat case strengthens the protective framework of the POSH Act by reaffirming that conciliation is a fundamental part of the process, not an optional step. This judgment emphasizes the importance of balancing justice with sensitivity, offering a pathway for early resolution while preserving the right to a formal inquiry when needed.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Leadership Responsibility in Preventing Workplace Harassment

Compliance under the POSH Act extends beyond HR departments. Leadership bears cultural and governance responsibility. Tone from the top significantly influences reporting behavior and employee confidence. Senior management must actively endorse policy, participate in awareness programs, and avoid informal interference in inquiries. Passive endorsement is insufficient; visible accountability matters. Boards must review annual POSH reports and monitor systemic risks. In multinational and GCC structures, alignment with global harassment standards is critical. Leadership silence often signals tolerance. Conversely, proactive messaging builds trust and deterrence. Prevention is ultimately a leadership function, not merely a legal requirement
Post a Comment
Read more

POSH Act in India: How Organizations Can Educate Employees About POSH Act Rights

  Posh law in India A major challenge in the implementation of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment ( POSH ) Act, 2013, is the lack of awareness among employees. Many workers are unaware of their rights, the complaint mechanisms available, and the protections the Act offers. Educating employees is not just a legal requirement but a crucial step in fostering a safe and inclusive workplace. Why Awareness Matters Workplace harassment often goes unreported due to lack of knowledge or fear of consequences. Organizations that prioritize awareness see: 1. Increased Reporting of Incidents – Employees are more likely to report issues when they understand the protections available. 2. Better Workplace Culture – A well-informed workforce fosters a culture of respect and accountability. 3. Stronger Legal Compliance – Awareness helps organizations stay compliant with POSH guidelines and avoid legal repercussions. 4. Reduced Risk of Retaliation – Knowledge of anti-retaliation measures emp...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of complainant under POSH ACT 2013

 The Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act, 2013 , is designed to provide a comprehensive framework for addressing and preventing sexual harassment in the workplace. Under this Act, complainants (usually women who have experienced sexual harassment) are granted several rights to ensure their protection, well-being, and the fair resolution of their complaints. Here are the key rights of complainants under the POSH Act: Right to File a Complaint: Complainants have the fundamental right to file a complaint if they believe they have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace. They can do so regardless of their position or employment status in the organization. Right to Confidentiality: The identity of the complainant must be kept confidential throughout the inquiry process to protect their privacy and prevent victimization or retaliation. Right to Protection: Complainants have the right to protection from victimization or adverse actions as a result of filing a comp...
Post a Comment
Read more