JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Appeal filed Under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order of the learned Judge made in W.P.No.27088 of 2017 dated 06.09.2019 and allow the above writ appeal.) N. Mala, J. Assailing the order dated 06.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27088 of 2017 the writ appeal is filed. The learned Single Judge set aside the Award dated 15.09.2017 in I.D.No.664 of 2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai by the impugned order. INTRODUCTION:- 2. The issue to be decided in the writ appeal relates to a complaint of sexual harassment by a female employee against the appellant. The constitution provides for gender equality and it is also a fundamental duty of every citizen to protect and promote the dignity of women. In the wake of Modernization Education etc. women are no longer confined to home and hearth. Women are competing with men in every field and hence it is the duty of every employer to safeguard and protect women in their work place. Even before any civil or penal law providing for protection of women at work place was enacted the Hon’bleSupreme Court in the path breaking Judgment in Vishaka’s case ( 1997 (6) SCC 241 ) laid down guidelines for protection of women against sexual harassment at work place. The guidelines were issued invoking the power vested in the Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to fill up the legislative gap. After more than a decade later “The Sexual Harassment of Women in Work Place (Protection, Prevention and Redressal) Act, 2013 was passed. The avowed objective of the Act is to protect, prevent and redress the grievance of women against sexual harassment at work place. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS:- 3. The respondent company is engaged in the business of Boiler Fabrication and it has a factory at Poonamallee, Chennai. The appellant was appointed as a Senior Welder in the respondent company on 01.01.2007 and was subsequently regularized after two years of service. The appellant as a Senior Welder was working in a supervisory cadre with a team of personnel consisting of 12 welders and 5 trainees working under him. The appellant was the Team Leader and was in-charge of the work assigned to him. The respondent company had a large number of women employees. 4. The appellant as a Senior Welder was working in a supervisory cadre with a team of personnel consisting of 12 welders and 5 trainees working under him. The appellant was the Team Leader and was in-charge of the work assigned to him. The respondent company had a large number of women employees. 4. On 23.04.2010 one Ms.D.Nathiya, who was one of the team member of the appellant filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment by the appellant. As the complaint related to sexual harassment and as such serious in nature, the respondent company constituted a preliminary enquiry committee comprising 4 top level executives including one woman member. The said committee conducted a detailed enquiry and filed it’s findings on 30.04.2010, wherein it found the appellant guilty of the complaint. A charge sheet was issued on 13.05.2020 for the misconduct of unauthorised absence for 10 days [14(e)], disrespectful conduct against co- worker [14(h)] and sexual harassment and sexual favour from women co-workers [14(i)] of the Model Conduct. The appellant submitted his reply on 20.05.2010, but being unsatisfied with the explanation the respondent company decided to conduct a domestic enquiry, for which purpose an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The notice of enquiry was issued to the appellant on 31.05.2010 calling upon the appellant to appear before the enquiry officer on 11.06.2010. In spite of sufficient opportunities the appellant did not participate in the enquiry proceedings and therefore the appellant was set exparte and the respondent company was directed to let-in evidence to substantiate the charges against the appellant. The respondent company examined witnesses on its side and also marked Ex.M1 to Ex.M14 in support of its case. The complainant sent a letter dated 20.05.2010 to the respondent company and also to the appellant stating that she was withdrawing her complaint against the appellant. It is to be pointed out here that the withdrawal of the complaint filed by the complainant was contrary to her deposition before the Enquiry Officer and further on 18.06.2010, the complainant herself explained the reason for the withdrawal of the complaint. The reason stated by her was that she did not want to jeopardise her matrimonial prospects and on the advise of the family members she had decided to withdraw the complaint. The reason stated by her was that she did not want to jeopardise her matrimonial prospects and on the advise of the family members she had decided to withdraw the complaint. Strangely the complainant in spite of her withdrawal letter dated 20.05.2010 appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 18.06.2010 and reiterated her allegation against the appellant and also the circumstances under which she had written the withdrawal letter dated 20.05.2010. The Enquiry Officer considered all the above and submitted his report, wherein he found that the charges against the appellant were proved. The appellant in the meanwhile moved the Labour Conciliation Officer II, Chennai and raised a dispute regarding his oral termination on 29.04.2010. The Conciliation Officer submitted his failure report. The respondent company based on the Enquiry report issued a second show cause notice to the appellant on 29.06.2010 calling for his objections and explanations against the enquiry officer’s report with a copy enclosed therein. 5. As the appellant failed to submit his objections, the respondent company issued the final order in the disciplinary proceedings on 18.10.2010, imposing the penalty of termination from service. The appellant raised a dispute as regards his oral termination on 29.4.2010 only and the same was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The appellant examined himself before the Labour Court as a witness and marked Ex.W1 to Ex.W36 in support of his case. So also the respondent company examined its Manager as a witness and marked Ex.M1 to Ex.M24 on its behalf. The Labour Court on an appreciation of the entire materials placed before it passed the award in I.D.No.664 of 2010 on 15.09.2017, directing the respondent Management to reinstate the appellant with full back wages and other attendant benefits including continuity of service. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the respondent company filed the writ petition. The learned Judge on an elaborate appraisal of the records and the submissions of the respective learned counsels allowed the writ petition on the premise that the misconduct of sexual harassment should be viewed seriously and no leniency should be shown in such cases. The delinquent employee has filed the above writ appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Judge. SUBMISSIONS:- 6. The delinquent employee has filed the above writ appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Judge. SUBMISSIONS:- 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant had withdrawn the complaint and under such circumstances the learned Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petition holding that the enquiry proceedings stood nullified on withdrawal of the complaint. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in several paragraphs of the Judgment the learned Judge had made sweeping observations not germane to the issue raised in the writ petition. 7. In contra, the learned counsel for the respondent company submitted that the charge of sexual harassment of a female employee against the appellant was serious in nature and as it was an assault on the self-respect and dignity of the woman employee the learned Judge was right in setting aside the order of the Labour Court, more so, when all the procedural requirements in law were scrupulously followed. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and we have also perused the records. The undisputed fact is that a woman employee by name Ms.D.Nathiya lodged a complaint against the appellant complaining of sexual harassment by the appellant at the work place. Based on the complaint an enquiry was conducted by a committee of top level executives including a woman in which the appellant was found guilty of sexual harassment of the complainant. Based on the enquiry report a charge sheet was issued on 13.05.2010 to the appellant but as his explanation was found to be unsatisfactory, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The appellant was set exparte as he failed to participate in the proceedings and after following the due procedure, the appellant was dismissed from service on 18.10.2010. 9. The appellant raised the labour dispute questioning his oral termination on 29.04.2010 and not the termination order dated 18.10.2010. The labour court allowed the ID and directed the respondent company to reinstate the appellant with backwages. The respondent company successfully challenged the Labour Court Award before the writ court, hence the present writ appeal is filed by the appellant. 10. The issue to be decided is whether on withdrawal of complaint by the complainant, the enquiry proceedings get nullified or not. It is to be pointed out here that it needs a lot of courage for a woman to complain about sexual harassment. 10. The issue to be decided is whether on withdrawal of complaint by the complainant, the enquiry proceedings get nullified or not. It is to be pointed out here that it needs a lot of courage for a woman to complain about sexual harassment. If the initial decision to lodge a complaint is difficult, it is even more difficult to endure the enquiry proceedings. Under the circumstances the complainant cannot be faulted for retracting her complaint . On the facts of the case the effect of withdrawal of the complaint on the termination of the appellant has to be decided. 11. Based on the complaint of the complainant an enquiry committee was constituted comprising 4 top level executives including a woman member. The enquiry committee conducted the enquiry in which the appellant participated on 29.04.2010 but left the enquiry abruptly. Thereafter based on the enquiry report a charge sheet was issued to the appellant on 13.05.2020 to which the appellant replied on 20.05.2010. The explanation was found to be unsatisfactory by the respondent company and so a domestic enquiry was conducted. The appellant did not participate in the domestic enquiry and so he was set exparte. In the course of the enquiry proceedings the complainant withdrew her complaint vide letter dated 20.05.2010. Even though the complainant withdrew her complaint, during her examination in the enquiry proceedings on 18.06.2020, she explained the circumstances under which he withdrew her complaint. She deposed that she withdrew her complaint because she did not want to prejudice her matrimonial prospects and also her family members advised her to withdraw the complaint. It is therefore clear that the withdrawal of the complaint was on the apprehension as stated therein. Though the complainant’scomplaint was withdrawn by her, the enquiry committee in the enquiry proceedings found the appellant guilty of sexual harrassment and filed a report against the appellant. The appellant is trying to exploit the situation to his advantage and the same cannot be permitted moreso when the complainant gave a proper explanation for such withdrawal. Therefore the learned Judge is right in his observation that if leniency is shown, then it would send a wrong message to the society particularly to women employees working in various establishments. We are in complete agreement with the learned single judge. Therefore the learned Judge is right in his observation that if leniency is shown, then it would send a wrong message to the society particularly to women employees working in various establishments. We are in complete agreement with the learned single judge. We reiterate that the menace of sexual harassment in work place has to be dealt with iron hands and as women belong to a vulnerable group, they are entitled to a safe environment at work place. If the avowed objective of the POSH Act, 2013 is to be achieved, then in the true spirit of the Act, lecherous persons should not be allowed to escape on mere technicalities, eventhough they are found guilty in the enquiry proceedings. 12. We are therefore of the considered view that there are no merits in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.