USHA C S Vs. MADRAS REFINERES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned single Judge made in W.P. Nos. 17347 and 17348 of 1998 dated November 3, 2000 dismissing both the writ petitions.

(2.) Necessary facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner- appellant are as as follows: The appellant/petitioner joined the first respondent/Public Sector Undertaking on June 1, 1987 as a Senior Officer and got promoted as Deputy Manager in 1992. She was sexually harassed by the second respondent by means of sexual advances and propositions. She suffered the problem silently and she did not complain to anyone officially then. In 1992, soon after the second respondent was posted as Head of the appellant's department as General Manager, Corporate Planning, he resumed his old ways and used to pass comments about her appearance despite her objections. It is alleged that as she did not yield to his advances, the second respondent openly fought for her exclusion from the core group for managing the Madras Refineries Limited public issue and since the then Chairman stood his ground, she was retained. The second respondent also refused to fill up performance appraisal for the year 1994-95 and she was not given her promotion due in the latter half of 1995, as one of the members, one Narayanan, who was a close friend of the second respondent, saw to it that she was not promoted. It is further alleged that during 1995, when she was nominated by the Chairman of the Company as a Member of the Working group formed by the Oil and Natural Gas Commission on "Restructuring of Oil industry", the second respondent continued with his sexual advances towards her. It is alleged that the petitioner got her admission to Ph. D. on the subject of Reforms in the Refinery Sector in Jamia Millia University, NewDelhi and she applied for grant of study leave with pay in January, 1996 and she got no response from the Management. According to her, during April, 1996, when she was in Delhi, she received an undated handwritten note on the Company's scribbling pad from an unidentified person advising to apply study leave without pay. On April 13, 1996 she met one M.B. Lal, the then Chairman-cum- Managing Director of the Company, who assured her that the study leave with pay would be granted and he also advised her to apply for reconsideration and accordingly, she applied on the same day. As there was no reply, she met the Secretary of the third respondent and apprised him. The Ministry issued a circular to the Undertakings in the Oil Sector to grant study leave with pay. The petitioner alleged in the affidavit that she was denied her pay from February, 1996 and only the second respondent had been the root cause behind the Company's denial of her salary, promotion and study leave. A charge sheet dated August 1, 1997 was issued by the first respondent alleging that the petitioner/appellant was absent without leave and committed acts subversive of discipline and had violated the Company's Rules to which a reply of .denial on August 8, 1997 followed by a detailed explanation on August 17, 1997 were sent by the petitioner. Thereafter, the charge sheet was not pursued. Even then her dues were not released and her salary from February, 1996 had been stopped. At this stage, she caused a lawyer's notice dated April 27, 1998 to be issued to the first respondent alleging sexual harassment by the second respondent and also the denial of promotion, salary, leave and medical benefits. She also called upon the first respondent to take disciplinary action against the second respondent. There was a reply by the first respondent through its counsel. A rejoinder was sent by the petitioner's lawyer to the counsel for the first respondent. On August 21, 1998, a letter was sent by the first respondent/company informing that a Complaints Committee had been formed to look into the allegations set out in the lawyer's notice dated April 27, 1998. Thereafter on September 7, 1998, a notice was sent by the Committee to the appellant asking her to appear before it on September 16, 1998. At her request, it was adjourned to October 6, 1998. In her request for adjournment she had asked the committee to involve a women organisation in its proceedings. On October 6, 1998, she appeared before the Committee and orally submitted that she wanted the assistance of a counsel and she also renewed her request for involving a women organisation in the enquiry. Her requests were not heeded to. She was pressed to state her case. She received a telegram on October 8, 1998 asking her to attend the hearing on that day without fail. Another telegram was sent by the Committee that a Member of the Madras Christian Council of Service had been co-opted by the Company. Since the appellant was unwell, she sought for an adjournment. According to the petitioner, the first respondent/Company had not framed any Rules and regulations to deal with the question of sexual harassment.

(3.) On coming to know that the second respondent had become the interim Chairman of the first respondent/company, by letter dated October 22, 1998, the petitioner/appellant expressed her apprehension about the lack of fairness in the Constitution of the Committee and its proceedings. She particularly wanted the second respondent to step down from the post of interim Chairman and not to participate in any decision regarding her complaint. Pointing out that A.M. Swaminathan, one of the Members of the Committee, knew most of the Directors and Executives of the Company, she wanted that the Complaint Mechanism be reconstituted after framing proper Rules/Regulations (or) guidelines ensuring absolutely independent and impartial enquiry. Her requests were ignored and by letter dated October 28, 1998 the first respondent advised the petitioner/appellant to report to duty immediately, thereafter, further informing that her absence after February 1, 1996 Was unauthorised and amounted to gross misconduct as per the charge sheet dated August 1, 1997. This necessitated her addressing the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas by letter dated October 28, 1998. As there was no response, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 17347 of 1998 praying to quash the charge sheet dated August 1, 1997 and to grant the benefits of revision of salary with arrears of pay from January 1, 1992, promotion and for the grant of study leave with pay. She also filed W.P. No. 17348 of 1998 praying to quash the order dated August 21, 1998 and to constitute an independent Complaint Mechanism after framing proper rules.