Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1905 (KER)

XXXXXXXXXX v. Biju P. A. , S/o P. A. Anthony

2025-07-09

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, SYAM KUMAR V.M.

body2025
JUDGMENT : Syam Kumar V.M., J. This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated12.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.8542 of 2024. Appellant was the 5 th respondent in the W.P.(C). Respondents were the petitioner and respondents 1 to 4 respectively in the W.P. (C). 2. The W.P. (C) had been filed by the 1 st respondent inter alia seeking to set aside Ext.P17 order dated 15.02.2024 issued by the 4 th respondent (Regional Joint Labour Commissioner). The learned Single Judge had allowed the W.P.(C) and had quashed Ext.P17 order inter alia holding that it was improper on the part of the appellant to prefer an appeal before the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner when this Court had in an earlier litigation to which the appellant was a party directed that the appeal had to be considered by the Board of Directors of the 2 nd respondent company. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge setting aside of Ext.P17 order of the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, this appeal has been filed by the appellant. 3. Brief facts as contended in the W.P.(C) are as follows: Appellant and 1 st respondent are working as rubber tappers in the Kallala Estate of Kalady Plantation of the Plantation Corporation of Kerala. They are members of different trade unions. The 1 st respondent, in his capacity as a senior tapper reported to the management that the appellant and certain other lady workers were not doing tapping work properly. Consequent to the same, explanations were called for from the appellant and others by the management. Due to the said incident, animosity arose in the appellant against the 1 st respondent which led her prefer a false complaint (Ext.P3) before the Manager stating that she was mentally harassed by the 1 st respondent. It was alleged in Ext.P3 that the 1 st respondent had been mentally torturing her unnecessarily. A show cause notice was issued to the 1 st respondent to which he replied. An enquiry that was conducted by the Manager concluded that there was no mental harassment as alleged. The appellant then preferred another complaint against the 1 st respondent on 30.06.2022 stating that no action had been taken on Ext.P3 complaint. In the said complaint too no specific allegation of sexual harassment was raised. An enquiry that was conducted by the Manager concluded that there was no mental harassment as alleged. The appellant then preferred another complaint against the 1 st respondent on 30.06.2022 stating that no action had been taken on Ext.P3 complaint. In the said complaint too no specific allegation of sexual harassment was raised. Ext.P6 report was filed by the Manager in the said complaint inter alia stating that no complaint as would fall within the ambit of Sexual harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Reddressal Act, 2013) had been made out in the complaint. In spite of the same, on the direction of the Managing Director, the matter was referred to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). Notwithstanding that no allegation of sexual harassment had been contained in the complaint, the ICC arrived at Ext.P7 report to the effect that the 1 st respondent is guilty of offences under the Sexual harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Reddressal Act, 2013). The Managing Director based on the same, issued a transfer order to the 1 st respondent transferring him to Athirappilly Estate. The 1 st respondent preferred Ext.P9 statutory appeal before the Board of Directors, viz., the employer. Since the said appeal was not being acted upon in time, the 1 st respondent moved this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.25644 of 2023. The said W.P. (C) was disposed of by this Court vide Ext.P10 judgment dated 04.08.2023 directing the 2 nd respondent Board of Directors to consider and pass orders on the appeal in accordance with law within two months. The appellant challenged the said judgment before a Division Bench of this Court by filing Writ Appeal No.1723 of 2023. The same was disposed of on 05.10.2023 by the Division Bench vide Ext.P11 judgment directing that the appeal filed by the 1 st respondent should be considered by the Board with notice to the appellant and that if the appellant is in any way aggrieved by the order, she too can file an appeal which should also be considered in accordance with law. Thereafter, the 3 rd respondent Board of Directors considered the appeal by constituting a Sub Committee to study and report on Ext.P7 report of the Internal Complaints Committee. The sub committee submitted Ext.P12 report stating that Ext.P7 is not in accordance with law and the findings against the 1 st respondent cannot be sustained. Thereafter, the 3 rd respondent Board of Directors considered the appeal by constituting a Sub Committee to study and report on Ext.P7 report of the Internal Complaints Committee. The sub committee submitted Ext.P12 report stating that Ext.P7 is not in accordance with law and the findings against the 1 st respondent cannot be sustained. The said report was accepted and led to the Managing issuing Ext.P13 proceedings dated 16.01.2024 retaining the 1 st respondent in the Kallala Estate itself. The 1 st respondent in the meanwhile preferred an appeal Ext.P14 before the 4 th respondent Regional Joint Labour Commissioner challenging Ext.P7 report and Ext.P8 order. An objection was filed by the 1 st respondent therein which is marked as Ext.P15. The Plantation Corporation had filed Ext.P16 statement in the said proceedings before the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner inter alia pointing out that as directed by the Single Bench and Division Bench of this Court, the Appellate Authority as per the Rules viz., the Board of Directors had already decided the matter and in view of the same an appeal before the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner is not sustainable. The 4 th respondent rendered an Ext.P17 order dated 15.02.2024 allowing the appeal directing the Management to demote and transfer the 1st respondent to any other estate far away from the Kallala Estate. An amount of Rs.50,000/- was also directed to be deducted from the salary of 1 st respondent and to give the same to the appellant as compensation. The 1 st respondent challenged Ext.P17 order by filing W.P.(C) No.8542 of 2024 before this Court which led to the impugned judgment whereby the learned Single Judge quashed Ext.P17 order issued by the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge this Writ Appeal has been filed. 4. Heard Smt.Amrutha K.P., Advocate, for the appellant Sri.R.Lakshminarayan, Senior Advocate for the 2 nd respondent and Sri.Manu Govind, Advocate for the 3 rd and 4 th respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is erroneous and legally unsustainable. It is contended that the same had been rendered without adhering to the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is erroneous and legally unsustainable. It is contended that the same had been rendered without adhering to the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The competent authority to consider the appeal from the orders issued by the ICC is the 5 th respondent Regional Joint Labour Commissioner. The learned Single Judge had erred in holding that the appellant ought not have filed an appeal before the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner. It is contended that the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner is the statutory authority empowered to entertain appeals under the relevant law. Merely because the 1 st respondent had already approached the Board of directors which lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, preventing the appellant from moving the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner is flawed. The learned Single Judge ought to have recognized that the governing legislation unequivocally mandates that statutory appeals under the POSH Act are to be entertained solely by the designated statutory authority, thereby precluding the constitution of ad hoc committees by random individuals or entities. It is contended that a victim's failure to challenge the jurisdiction of a committee which does not have jurisdiction cannot serve to legitimize its authority or validate its decisions. The learned Single Judge ought to have declared that the order promulgated by the Board of Directors was a nullity, having been rendered without jurisdiction and in contravention of the statutory provisions. The said order was liable to be set aside in its entirety since the governing legislation proscribes the employer from conducting an enquiry into complaints of sexual harassment at the workplace, since it is statutorily ordained to be conducted only by the Internal Complaints Committee. The learned Single Judge had erred in inferring that this Court had implicitly sanctioned the jurisdiction of the board of directors to entertain the appeal. The learned counsel, vehemently contended that a reading of the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench would reveal that the pivotal issue of whether the third respondent possesses the requisite authority to consider the appeal in a sexual harassment case was never actually considered or adjudicated upon. The learned counsel, vehemently contended that a reading of the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench would reveal that the pivotal issue of whether the third respondent possesses the requisite authority to consider the appeal in a sexual harassment case was never actually considered or adjudicated upon. The learned Single Judge ought to have followed the settled legal position that an order rendered without jurisdiction is a nullity and is thus void. Thus it was prayed by the learned counsel that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is fit to be set aside. 6. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference and that the same has been rendered validly and in accordance with law. The learned Senior Counsel points to the Standing Orders governing the parties submitted that the competent body as per the relevant law applicable to consider the appeal from the order of the ICC is the Board of Directors. It is contended that, as directed in the Division Bench judgment of this Court, it was decided that the Corporation Director Board should hear the appellant. In furtherance of the same, a subcommittee had been constituted consisting of three members of the Corporation Director Board. The report of the subcommittee which investigated the matter had been duly submitted to the Board and the Subcommittee had therein found that the ICC enquiry proceedings were not conducted in accordance with law and there were serious procedural lapses. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid on by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijayakumaran C.P. (Dr.) v. Central University of Kerala and others [ 2020 (1) KHC 982 ] & Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and others [ (2024) 1 SCC 632 ]. 7. Sri.Manu Govind, appearing for the 2 nd respondent reiterated the contentions put forth by the learned Senior Counsel and also placed reliance on the dictum laid down in E.K.Sasi v. Thalayazham Service Co-operative Bank Limited. [(2014) SCC OnLine Ker 4452] and contended that it is well settled law that even in cases where a Tribunal has acted beyond its powers, if justice has been done by it, the Writ Court will decline to interfere with the order. [(2014) SCC OnLine Ker 4452] and contended that it is well settled law that even in cases where a Tribunal has acted beyond its powers, if justice has been done by it, the Writ Court will decline to interfere with the order. He contends that in the said case, relying on the dictum laid down in Madhavikutty v. State of Kerala [ 2008 (1) KLT 692 ] , and following the Apex Court judgment in Mohammad Swalleh v. IIIrd Additional District Judge [ (1988) 1 SCC 40 ] , it had been held that even assuming an order is passed by an authority having no jurisdiction, still this Court need not interfere with the same if justice has been done. 8. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered the contentions put forth. We note that the Single Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 04.08.2023 rendered in the W.P.(C) No.25644 of 2023 filed by the 1 st respondent had inter alia directed that the Board of Directors of the 2 nd respondent shall take up the appeal preferred by the 1 st respondent and dispose it off after affording him an opportunity of being heard. It is pertinent that an appeal had been filed by the appellant challenging the said judgment of the learned Single Judge and a Division Bench of this Court had vide judgment dated 04.12.2023 disposed of the same stating as follows : “It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on either side that the copy of the order from which the appeal referred to in the judgment was filed has now been served on the complainant as well. It is further submitted that the transfer of the first respondent has also been effected. In the above view of the matter, nothing survives for consideration in this writ appeal. This writ appeal is accordingly closed. Any appeal from the order passed by the ICC preferred by the first respondent shall be considered with notice to the appellant as well. In case the appellant is in any way aggrieved by the order, the appellant can also file an appeal, which will also be considered in accordance with law.” We note that the above judgment of this Court had become final and subsequent thereto the proceedings had continued as directed by this Court before the Board of Directors. In case the appellant is in any way aggrieved by the order, the appellant can also file an appeal, which will also be considered in accordance with law.” We note that the above judgment of this Court had become final and subsequent thereto the proceedings had continued as directed by this Court before the Board of Directors. The appellant had also participated in the said proceedings. Subsequently, the appellant had chosen to prefer another appeal before the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, the order rendered wherein was impugned before the learned Single Judge. It is in the said context, that the learned Single Judge had concluded that when this Court had directed the Board of Directors of the 2 nd respondent to consider the appeal it was not proper for the appellant to approach the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner with a separate appeal. We do not find any error in the said conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge. The objections that the appellant had against the Board of Directors of the 2 nd respondent considering the appeal preferred by the 1 st respondent had already been raised by her before the Division Bench by filing an appeal and the same had been set at naught by the Division Bench judgment of this Court and the said decision had become final. After having participated in the said appellate proceedings before the Board as directed by the Division Bench, the appellant could not have done a volte face and preferred another appeal before a different authority, viz., the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner whose competency to consider the subject matter had been challenged based on the relevant Standing Orders applicable to the parties. Further it is noted that the question of maintainability of the appeal had been specifically raised by the respondents 1, 2 and 4 before the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner and the judgments rendered by this Court had been brought to his notice. Ext.P17 order which has been rendered the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner however does not reveal any discussion on the question of maintainability. It had proceeded to direct the demotion of the 1 st respondent from the post of Supervisor and transfer him to another plantation far away from the plantation wherein the appellant is working. Ext.P17 order which has been rendered the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner however does not reveal any discussion on the question of maintainability. It had proceeded to direct the demotion of the 1 st respondent from the post of Supervisor and transfer him to another plantation far away from the plantation wherein the appellant is working. Further it is seen that the said order had in a cryptic and arbitrary fashion directed the 2 nd and 4 th respondents to collect an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the salary of the 1 st respondent and pay the same to the appellant. On the said count too we note that the order of the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner was rightly interfered with and set aside the learned Single Judge. In view of the above, we find no illegality or error in the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.