The petitioners(woman) was employed with the respondents ( HMT Limited) in their watch marketing division.
She was being sexually harassed by the security guard twice.
Each time, she filed a complaint against the guard before the authority of the company. But the authority of the company did not take any action with regard to her complaint.
Later the same security guard sexually harassed her by way of comments and she slapped the guard with her slipper.
A complaint was filed against her by the security guard before the authority of the Company.
The Company appointed an inquiry officer to inquire into the allegations made by the security guard and on the basis of the findings of the enquiry report, the Company imposed upon her a penalty of removal from service.
The woman challenged the order of removal by way of a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
The Court held, “The question with reference to punishment would also be relevant in the light of the findings arrived at by the inquiry officer. It is not a case that the petitioner after receiving the charge-sheet has made any complaint against the attitude and misbehavior of Shri Gulab Singh(Security Guard) but it is a case where prior to the incident there were two complaints against the complainant but the management did not take any action against him. On the date of incident also the petitioner was sexually harassed by way of comment on her by the complainant there it could be understandable that the petitioner being a lady was left with no option but to take some action in her defence. The reliance can profitably had to the decision of the Apex Court observed in Vishaka and others vs State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1997 SC 3011. Their Lordships of the Apex Court have held that sexual harassment of working woman amounts to violation of rights of gender equality and right to life and liberty. Applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, the present is not a case where the behavior and attitude of the petitioner of slapping by chappal and abusing complaint Shri. Gulab Singh was irritating in any manner. Since the petitioner was sexually harassed in the past and complaints were made by her but no action was taken thereupon and on the date of incident also the sexual harassment was practiced on the petitioner, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was unjustified in defending herself against the sexual harassment. These aspects have not been taken into account by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority, therefore, the impugned orders are unsustainable in the eyes of law.”
The Court directed the respondents( Company) to reinstate the petitioner in service with 75% back wages.
Source:-Smt. Vijay Jalai vs HMT Limited & Ors., 2010 LLR.
She was being sexually harassed by the security guard twice.
Each time, she filed a complaint against the guard before the authority of the company. But the authority of the company did not take any action with regard to her complaint.
Later the same security guard sexually harassed her by way of comments and she slapped the guard with her slipper.
A complaint was filed against her by the security guard before the authority of the Company.
The Company appointed an inquiry officer to inquire into the allegations made by the security guard and on the basis of the findings of the enquiry report, the Company imposed upon her a penalty of removal from service.
The woman challenged the order of removal by way of a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
The Court held, “The question with reference to punishment would also be relevant in the light of the findings arrived at by the inquiry officer. It is not a case that the petitioner after receiving the charge-sheet has made any complaint against the attitude and misbehavior of Shri Gulab Singh(Security Guard) but it is a case where prior to the incident there were two complaints against the complainant but the management did not take any action against him. On the date of incident also the petitioner was sexually harassed by way of comment on her by the complainant there it could be understandable that the petitioner being a lady was left with no option but to take some action in her defence. The reliance can profitably had to the decision of the Apex Court observed in Vishaka and others vs State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1997 SC 3011. Their Lordships of the Apex Court have held that sexual harassment of working woman amounts to violation of rights of gender equality and right to life and liberty. Applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, the present is not a case where the behavior and attitude of the petitioner of slapping by chappal and abusing complaint Shri. Gulab Singh was irritating in any manner. Since the petitioner was sexually harassed in the past and complaints were made by her but no action was taken thereupon and on the date of incident also the sexual harassment was practiced on the petitioner, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was unjustified in defending herself against the sexual harassment. These aspects have not been taken into account by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority, therefore, the impugned orders are unsustainable in the eyes of law.”
The Court directed the respondents( Company) to reinstate the petitioner in service with 75% back wages.
Source:-Smt. Vijay Jalai vs HMT Limited & Ors., 2010 LLR.
Regards
Team, Legal Point Foundation
For any Legal query :
Deepak Miglani Advocate(09958086337, 09215514435)
deepakmiglani@hotmail.com,legalbuddy@gmail.com
Team, Legal Point Foundation
For any Legal query :
Deepak Miglani Advocate(09958086337, 09215514435)
deepakmiglani@hotmail.com,legalbuddy@gmail.com
Legal India –A Group in Face book
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?v=info&gid=331712949260
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?v=info&gid=331712949260
Our main aim is to remove legal ignorance from our country because legal ignorance is one of the main hurdle in the path of our development. The Legal Tip/Legal News/Legal Alert are tools to spread legal awareness among literates. Approximately 50,000 peoples are receiving this message. Please forward this message to your friends as a contribution to this holy cause.
No comments:
Post a Comment