SUMANA BHOWMICK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two writ petitions are taken up for consideration together. In W.P. No.117 of 2019 the petitioner, who is an ex-employee of Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd., has prayed for partial modification of the Impugned Order dated January 31, 2019, passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kolkata/Appellate Authority. In the second writ petition being W.P.A. No.11842(W) of 2019, the employer/Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. has prayed for setting aside and/or quashing of the same Impugned Order dated January 31, 2019, passed by the Appellate Authority under The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

(2.) W.P.O. 177 of 2019 is taken up for consideration first. On January 4, 2008, the petitioner joined the services of the respondent company/Balmer Lawrie. The petitioner worked as a Deputy Manager. The petitioner was designated to the post of Deputy Manager (Sales) from June 29, 2012. Thereafter, the petitioner worked in the post of Deputy Manager - Logistics Service Department and continued in service till her dismissal vide Order dated August 4, 2016. It is alleged that the Respondent No.8/one Manas Kumar Ganguly, the then Chief Operating Officer (COO) in the Logistics Department, misbehaved with the petitioner, sometimes in July 2015. The petitioner complained to the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) through Online Grievance Cell on November 2, 2015. Upon intervention by the PMO, the petitioner received a letter from the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of the respondent company, on December 23, 2015.

(3.) On January 5, 2016, the petitioner appeared before the ICC for agitating her grievance. The findings of the ICC were dated March 2, 2016. ICC found that the allegations made by the petitioner against the respondent No.8 to be vague and ambiguous and held that the charges remained unproved. Based on the recommendations of the ICC, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner was dismissed from service. The report of the Internal Complaints Committee was dated March 11, 2016, based on which the disciplinary proceeding was initiated. The said report and recommendation dated March 11, 2016 was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition being W.P. No.1107 of 2016. An Order was passed on January 24, 2017, which was assailed in an intra-court appeal. The Hon'ble Division Bench by its Order dated October 30, 2017, granted liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the Impugned report/recommendations of the ICC before the Appellate Authority under Sec. 18 of the 2013 Act. By the Impugned Order dated January 31, 2019 the Appellate Authority set aside the Report of the ICC dated March 11, 2016. It directed a de-novo enquiry of the complaint made by the petitioner and remanded the proceedings before the ICC. The petitioner in W.P.O. 177 of 2019 has challenged the decision to remand the petitioner's complaint for fresh consideration before the ICC. The petitioner claims that the only appropriate authority for enquiring into the complaint of the petitioner was the Local Complaints Committee (LCC) and not the ICC.