Judicial Restraint in ICC Proceedings: Madras High Court Reinstates ICC Findings

• Author(s): Gunjan Gupta, Malvika Katyal
• Date: 01-Apr-2025
• Post in: Employment

Case Overview

In the matter of HCL Technologies Ltd. vs. N.Parsarathy[1], HCL Technologies Ltd. (HCL) filed a writ petition challenging the order by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai (Labour Court), which had overturned the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of HCL in a sexual harassment case under The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). Mr. N. Parsarathy (Respondent), serving as an Associate General Manager at HCL, faced allegations of sexual harassment from multiple women employees during his tenure.

The respondent was appointed as an Associate General Manager pursuant to the appointment letter dated March 28, 2016, and worked in a supervisory role. During his tenure with HCL, multiple complaints were filed against him by various women employees alleging sexual harassment. The ICC conducted a thorough inquiry, considering statements from both parties, in accordance with the provisions of the POSH Act. After evaluating the evidence, the ICC found the allegations to be substantiated and issued its recommendations on August 31, 2018.

As per the ICC's recommendations, the Respondent was given a final warning letter, his role was changed to that of an individual contributor, his work location was restricted to India only, and he was deemed ineligible for a pay rise or any related benefits for the next two years. The Respondent was terminated on July 12, 2019. However, it is noteworthy that his termination was not linked to the ICC’s findings.

The Respondent did not challenge the ICC’s recommendations immediately after they were issued. Instead, he filed a challenge only after his termination, claiming that the ICC inquiry was flawed and that the findings were not proportionate to the evidence. The Labour Court overturned the ICC’s decision, citing procedural irregularities such as the non-disclosure of CCTV footage and the lack of cross-examination of the complainants. HCL subsequently approached the Madras High Court (High Court) to quash the Labour Court’s ruling.

Key Legal Findings

The High Court, vide its judgment dated January 22, 2025, reaffirmed that, under the POSH Act, sexual harassment is determined by the impact of the act on the complainant rather than the alleged intent of the accused. The High Court held that the complainants' perception of discomfort and unwelcome behaviour was sufficient to establish harassment. It emphasized that the feelings of the complainants take precedence over the statements of other witnesses or any visuals that might or might not have been recorded on the office premises' CCTV. CCTV footage and visuals alone cannot conclusively prove or disprove intent. What matters is how the complainants felt, not whether the accused intended to harass them. The High Court held that the actions, if perceived as unwelcome by the complainants, qualify as sexual harassment under Section 2(n) of the POSH Act.

Referring to Supreme Court’s ruling in Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. Chopra[2], the High Court emphasized the need for judicial bodies to consider workplace realities and not overlook the respondent's behaviour towards junior female employees. In the present case also, the High Court observed that the complainants clearly reported the harassment without any ambiguity. The evidence and statements on record demonstrated that the respondent, while performing his duties, had subjected the complainants to uncomfortable and distressing situations.

The judgment also cited the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Joseph Oncale vs. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.[3], which emphasized that in the matter of complaints given for sexual harassment in workplaces, the standard of reasonableness is not the standard of a reasonable man but the standard of a reasonable woman.

The High Court further observed that the ICC appeared to be sensitive and reasonable in its approach during the process of inquiry and had formulated its own method of ensuring fairness in giving opportunities to both the complainant and the respondent. Strict rules of evidence have got no application to the type of inquiry conducted by the ICC on the charges of sexual harassment against women employees.

Additionally, the High Court clarified that the scope of judicial review concerning ICC inquiry reports is limited to examining whether the inquiry was conducted fairly and properly, and whether basic principles were adhered to. This principle highlights the need for caution and restraint when courts assess ICC proceedings, as the ICC is uniquely positioned to understand workplace dynamics and harassment allegations. Judicial interference should be based on substantial flaws or irrationality rather than mere procedural lapses.

High Court's Decision

After analysing the facts and evidence, the High Court quashed the order of the Labour Court, thereby upholding the ICC’s findings and recommendations. The High Court emphasized that the Labour Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by interfering with the ICC's conclusions without sufficient legal basis. It emphasized that judicial interference in ICC proceedings should be limited to instances where the decision is patently illegal, influenced by irrelevant factors, or is such that no reasonable person would have arrived at it.

Relevant Legal Precedents

The High Court relied on multiple legal precedents to support its reasoning:

• Medha Kotwal Lele and Ors. vs. Union of India[4]: The Supreme Court recognized ICC reports as equivalent to disciplinary inquiry reports as the ICC would be deemed to be the inquiring authority for the purpose of disciplinary action.
• Hira Nath Mishra and Ors. vs. The Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi and Ors[5]: The Supreme Court held that the rules of natural justice cannot remain uniform across all situations, particularly in cases of sexual harassment, to avoid secondary victimization during inquiries.
• Vidya Akhave vs. Union of India[6]: The Bombay High Court stated that courts should not interfere with ICC findings unless there is non-compliance with fairness. It has been repeatedly held in several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in disciplinary proceedings, especially those related to charges of sexual harassment, the courts should not be influenced by insignificant discrepancies or hyper-technicalities, and the appreciation should be comprehensive.
• B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India[7]: The Supreme Court ruling clarified that judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited to assessing procedural fairness rather than re-evaluating evidence. The power of judicial review cannot be used as an appellate authority to reassess facts or reach independent conclusions. Such interference is permissible only if the inquiry process was fundamentally flawed, such as being conducted in violation of natural justice principles, disregarding prescribed procedural rules, or arriving at conclusions unsupported by any evidence, relying instead on mere assumptions and presumptions.

Conclusion

The High Court’s decision underscores the principle that judicial intervention in ICC findings should be minimal, emphasizing that the complainants’ perception of harassment takes precedence over the accused's intent. The ruling affirms that ICC recommendations, once made following a fair and unbiased inquiry, should not be disrupted by the courts unless there is a clear legal violation or irrationality in the process.