India: Repercussions Of Non-Constitution Of Internal Complaints Committee For Dealing With Instances Of Sexual Harassment Of Women At Workplace

Authored by –

Mr. Hitender Mehta, Partner, Vaish Associates Advocates ( &

Ms. Rakshanda Niyazi, Senior Associate, Vaish Associates Advocates (


In India, prior to 1997, no codified guidelines or definitions of the term 'sexual harassment' was available. In a landmark judgment, Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011, the Supreme Court framed guidelines basing it on the right to equality and dignity accorded under the Constitution of India (popularly known as "Vishaka Guidelines"). Following the Vishaka Guidelines, the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (the "Act") was enacted and published in the Gazette of India vide S.O. 360 (E), dated December 9, 2013. The Act came into force on December 9, 2013.

Having said that, law declared by Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. In simple words, the judgment of Supreme Court has the force of law.

Applicability and Scope of the Act

The Act extends to 'whole of India' and stipulates that a woman shall not be subjected to sexual harassment at her workplace.1 It is pertinent to note that the Act seeks to protect only women and is not intended to be a gender neutral legislation. The Act provides that an 'aggrieved woman' in relation to a workplace, is a woman of any age, whether employed or not, who alleges to have been subjected to any act of sexual harassment2. Further, the Act applies to both the organized and unorganized sectors in India. The statute, inter alia, applies to government bodies, private and public sector organisations, non-governmental organisations, organisations carrying out commercial, vocational, educational, entertainment, industrial, financial activities, hospitals and nursing homes, educational institutes, sports institutions and stadiums used for training individuals and a dwelling place or a house3 and to unorganized sector also.

Constitution of Internal Complaints Committee (ICC)

The Act inter alia mandates an employer to set-up ICC by an order in writing at each office or branch of an organization employing at least 10 (ten) employees. It further provides that where the offices or administrative units of the workplace are located at different places or divisional or sub-divisional level, the ICC shall be constituted at all administrative units or offices.

Composition and tenure of ICC

The employer shall nominate members of ICC which shall consists of:

  1. A Presiding officer who shall be a woman employed at a senior level from amongst the employees;
  2. Not less than two members from amongst the employees preferably committed to the cause of women or who have had experience in social work or have legal knowledge; and
  3. One member from amongst non-governmental organizations or associations committed to the cause of women or a person familiar with the issues relating to Sexual Harassment.

The Act provides that the term of the Presiding officer or any member of the ICC shall be specified by the employer which shall not exceed three years from the date of their nomination.

Consequences of non-constitution of ICC

Section 26 of the Act stipulates that where the employer fails inter alia to constitute ICC, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees and for repeated violation of same offence there could be cancellation of the license or withdrawal, or non-renewal or approval or cancellation of the registration by the Government.

Analysis of Gayathri Balaswamy vs. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. case

In the case of Gayathri Balaswamy vs. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. (Mad.), MANU/TN/2293/2014 (hereinafter referred to as "Novasoft case") decided on 2nd September 2014, Hon'ble Madras High Court awarded hefty compensation to the aggrieved woman employee for non-constitution of the ICC.

Brief facts of the Novasoft case

  1. The petitioner employee (Ms. Gayathri Balaswamy), entered into an employment agreement with the first respondent company (ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd.) on 10.3.2006. Under the said agreement, the petitioner was to be appointed as Vice President (M&A Integration Strategy) with effect from 27.4.2006.
  2. Within few months of the commencement of the contract of employment, some untoward incidents happened, as a consequence of which, the petitioner employee claims to have tendered a resignation on 24.7.2006. But, the resignation didn't take effect. After a year, three letters of termination followed in succession (on 17.10.2007, 12.12.2007 and 20.12.2007).
  3. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged a criminal complaint on 26.12.2007 against two officers of the company for alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 ("The Tamil Nadu Act"). The company also filed criminal complaints of defamation and extortion against the petitioner. Eventually, when both the petitioner and the first respondent landed up before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court referred the parties for resolution of all their disputes through arbitration.
  4. The petitioner filed a Statement of Claim of Rs.28,88,55,500/- under 12 (twelve) different headings. The Arbitrator passed an Award dated 21.3.2012 directing payment of a sum of Rs. 2 crore as compensation to the petitioner together with interest at 18% per annum from 1.4.2012 and all the counter claims filed by the first respondent company were rejected by the Arbitrator. The first respondent company was also directed to give a no objection certificate indicating that it was a contractual termination as recognised in the industry, so as not to come in the way of the petitioner's future employment.
  5. Aggrieved by the rejection of all the heads of claim except one, by the Arbitrator, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the Madras High Court.

Decision of the Arbitrator and the High Court on the Different Heads of Claim of the Petitioner

Claim no. Description of the Claim Claim amount (Rs.) Decision of the Arbitrator Decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court


Bonus for the Completion of first year of employment 21,60,000 Rejected In concurrence with the view of the Arbitrator.


Arrears in salary 11,62,500 Rejected In concurrence with the view of the Arbitrator.


Severance payouts 1,17,00,000 Allowed In concurrence with the view of the Arbitrator.


Bonus for the second year of employment 18,00,000 Rejected In concurrence with the view of the Arbitrator.


Non-revision of salary after the end of the first year of employment. 67,50,000 Rejected In concurrence with the view of the Arbitrator.


Failure of the respondent to transfer the claimant to the United States of America (USA) 3,51,00,000 Rejected In concurrence with the view of the Arbitrator.


Non-compliance of the procedure by the respondent while purportedly terminating the claimant 3,51,00,000 Rejected In concurrence with the view of the Arbitrator.


Not providing bonus in the second year of employment 18,00,000 Rejected In concurrence with the view of the Arbitrator.


Not providing the learning and training opportunity 26,10,000 Rejected In concurrence with the view of the Arbitrator.


Failure to provide stock option under the Company's employee stock option scheme 4,50,00,000 Rejected In concurrence with the view of the Arbitrator.


Loss of employment opportunity 5,76,00,000 Rejected In concurrence with the view of the Arbitrator.


Damages for non-constitution of committee to inquire into allegations of sexual harassment 9,07,00,000 Rejected The Court differed with the Arbitrator on this head of claim and modified the arbitration award by allowing an additional compensation of Rs.1,68,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and sixty eight lakhs only) to the petitioner towards the 12th head of her claim.

This has been discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.

Compensation for non-constitution of ICC to inquire into allegations of sexual harassment

The complaint of sexual harassment formed the basis for a series of litigation between the parties, both civil and criminal, and they ultimately culminated in the arbitration proceedings. Eventually, after holding that the non-constitution of a committee to inquire into allegations of sexual harassment cannot be the basis for compensation, the Arbitrator rejected the 12th head of claim of the petitioner.

The 12th head of claim was for compensation of Rs.9.07 crores towards exemplary damages for non-compliance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Vishaka case. According to the petitioner, she suffered harassment at the hands of her superior by name Mr. Krishna Srinivasan, which actually forced her to tender her resignation on 24.7.2006. It was the case of the petitioner in her claim statement before the Arbitrator that the sexual harassment by Mr. Krishna Srinivasan never stopped. The petitioner sent a mail dated 14.12.2007 to the Board of Directors complaining about the inappropriate behaviour of Mr. Krishna Srinivasan. However, the company did not constitute a Complaints Committee as required by the decision of the Supreme Court in Vishaka.

Further, the award of Arbitrator stated that since there was a grievance committee in place in the company, to which, she never complained at any time, while she was in service and also since the persons, to whom she complained, were not the directors of the company, the conclusion came out that the prosecution launched by her was only a step taken to bring them to the negotiating table as a legal strategy is completely perverse.

The Court however held that the entire reasoning given by the Arbitrator from paragraph 30 onwards is completely perverse and does not at all reflect the correct position in law. The first conclusion reached by the Arbitrator in paragraph 30 of the award that even if the natural right of an employee to a safe working environment is breached, the measure of damages cannot be more than a year's salary, is certainly not in tune with the Public Policy in India. The fact that a sexually harassed woman employee, has a right, in addition to other rights, to walk out of the company on the ground of breach of contract, is not a ground to hold that the measure of damages cannot be more than that fixed for a breach. This conclusion of the Arbitrator that the petitioner always had a right to go out, is simply akin to affixing a seal of approval upon the decision of Mr. M.F. Hussain to leave the country on the ground that if he did not have a safe living atmosphere in India, it is always open to him to move out.

In paragraph 15 of its decision in Vishaka, the Supreme Court quoted its earlier decision in Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa [MANU/SC/0307/1993 : 1993(2)SCC 746], wherein it was held that 'an enforceable right to compensation is not alien to the concept of enforcement of a guaranteed right.' Therefore, the finding that the measure of damages is to be limited to the one provided in the contract for its breach, is to belittle the guaranteed right to a safe working environment.

The finding with regard to vicarious liability in the Arbitrator's award is not in tune with the Public Policy in India. As a matter of fact, the very directions contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishaka impose an obligation upon every employer to have a committee constituted for the redressal of the grievances of women employees. If the finding with regard to vicarious liability given by the Arbitrator in his award is accepted, then no employer need to constitute any committee, since a victim can always be directed to take recourse individually against the offending employee.

The employer had an obligation imposed by the decision of the Supreme Court, to constitute a committee. The constitution of such a committee was intended to serve two purposes namely (i) to redress the grievances of women employees; and (ii) to send a clear signal to all the employees that complaints of sexual assaults would be enquired into by a committee specially constituted for the purpose, with the participation of outsiders. In other words, the constitution of the committee was to serve both as preventive as well as punitive. It is actually the failure of the first respondent to constitute such a committee, as mandated by law, that gave rise to a vicarious liability on the part of the first respondent. This aspect was completely overlooked by the Arbitrator.

Likewise, the finding of the Arbitrator that the delay on the part of the petitioner in lodging a criminal complaint, especially after moving out of the company, indicated that she was only interested in compensation, was held to be completely perverse. If the company had failed in its legal duty imposed in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Vishaka, then the employee cannot be expected to lodge a police complaint even while continuing in employment. The existence of a grievance committee or an ombudsperson can never be an excuse for violating the mandate of law as laid down by the Supreme Court.

The fact that no committee was constituted as per the dictate of Supreme Court was an admitted fact. Therefore, all other issues such as delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR), the focus on monetary compensation in the correspondence during the pre-litigation stage and the lack of pleading about the sufferance of an emotional or mental injury, etc., were beyond the scope of the actual issue to be decided.

The Court went on saying that the claim of the first respondent that there was an ombudsman and that there was a grievance committee, deserves to be simply thrown out of the window. If the law requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner, it shall be done only in that manner and not otherwise. No ombudsman can be a substitute for a committee as required by the Supreme Court to be constituted.

According the Hon'ble High Court, what is more shocking is the finding of the Arbitrator that the petitioner had not alleged or proved any physical, mental or emotional injury. Emotional or mental injury for a woman is an automatic and natural result of sexual harassment at work place, unless it is pleaded by the offender that the woman in question was happy about it. It was not the case of the first respondent that the petitioner was happy about the harassment and actually welcomed it. The moment harassment is established, emotional and mental injury is to be presumed.

Non-constitution of the committee was held to have actually resulted in the damage suffered by the petitioner being unquantifiable. Therefore, all that an Arbitrator could have done, had he arrived at the correct conclusion with regard to the 12th head of claim, is to have awarded an ad hoc amount as compensation, without any scientific formula being available with mathematical precision.

Considering the status occupied and the position in which the petitioner was employed in the first respondent organisation and considering the opportunities that she lost on account of the non constitution of the committee, the Court was of the view that the grant of an amount equivalent the severance benefit of Rs.1,68,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and sixty lakhs), as compensation towards the 12th head of claim, would be appropriate.

Therefore, in the result, the arbitration award was modified to the effect that apart from the compensation awarded by the Arbitrator, the petitioner will be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.1,68,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and sixty eight lakhs) towards compensation against the 12th head of claim.

From the analysis of the above mentioned case, it may be noted that the Court rejected all other claims of the petitioner and was, by and large, in concurrence with the decision of the Arbitrator on almost all the issues except the claim for damages on account of non-constitution of ICC to inquire into allegations of sexual harassment. Had the company constituted the ICC as contemplated by the Vishaka Guidelines, or as the case may be, the Act, the penalty on account of additional compensation of Rs.1.68 crore could have been avoided. It is therefore up to the employers to err on the side of caution to ensure the compliance of the Act, in the letter and spirit.


1 Section 3 of the Act

2 Section 2(a) of the Act 2

3 Section 2(o) of the Act

© 2016, Vaish Associates Advocates,
All rights reserved
Advocates, 1st & 11th Floors, Mohan Dev Building 13, Tolstoy Marg New Delhi-110001 (India).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist professional advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. The views expressed in this article are solely of the authors of this article.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Rakshanda Niyazi
In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions