SHARANJEET KAUR vs IDBI BANK LTD
$~51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 417/2024 & C.M.No.30910/2024
SHARANJEET KAUR ….. Appellant Through: Appellant in person. versus
IDBI BANK LTD ….. Respondent
Through: Mr.Praful Jindal with Mr.Akash Mohan and Ms.Raj Nandini, Advocates.
% Date of Decision: 22nd May, 2024
CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)
1.
Present appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment dated 09th April, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.1841/2021 and Order No.7758/2019-20 dated 16th March, 2020 passed by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of Respondent.
2.
Vide order dated 16th March, 2020, the complaint filed by the appellant against the General Manager of Respondent was closed as disposed of.
3.
Vide judgment dated 09thApril, 2024, the appellants writ petition challenging the closure of her complaint was dismissed on account of alternative efficacious remedy being available under Section 18 of the
LPA No.417/2024 Page 1 of 3
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition And Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
4.
The appellant, who appears in person, states that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the petition on the ground of statutory remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act. She submits that no appeal is maintainable in the instant case as no fact-finding inquiry ever took place on her complaint till date. She states that without any inquiry, no appeal can lie.
5.
She further states that the learned Single Judge by dismissing the writ petition solely on the ground of maintainability due to alternative efficacious remedy has contradicted his predecessors order dated 11th February, 2021, wherein the Court while entertaining the petition had expressed its opinion to examine the petition on merits and directed the respondent to file its counter affidavit without questioning the maintainability. Consequently, according to her, the final order dated 09th April, 2024 is contrary to the previous order dated 11th February, 2021, which has caused grave prejudice and injustice to the appellant.
6.
After hearing the appellant, this Court is of the view that the appellants submission that without any inquiry, an appeal cannot lie is misplaced as the recommendations made by ICC under Section 13(2) of the POSH Act in the present case is appealable to the Court or Tribunal in accordance with Section 18 of the POSH Act. Further, it is apparent from the order dated 16th March, 2020 that an inquiry was conducted by the ICC into the appellants complaint and the complaint was not simply closed but disposed of by the ICC as closed.
7.
Further, the appellants contention that the petition could not have been disposed of on the ground of maintainability after issuance of notice on
LPA No.417/2024 Page 2 of 3
11th February, 2021 is contrary to facts as vide order dated 11th February, 2021, the respondent was directed to file the counter affidavit without prejudice to its contention that the writ petition was not maintainable, i.e. the objection to the maintainability was preserved and allowed to be agitated by the respondent in the counter affidavit. The said objection was explicitly left open and not closed, as incorrectly contended by the appellant.
8.
Consequently, the present appeal along with the application is dismissed.
9.
To balance the equities, it is directed that in the event the appeal is filed within two weeks from today, the same shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
10.
Moreover, as considerable time has lapsed since filing of the initial complaint, this Court directs that, in the event the appellant were to file a proceeding under Section 18 of the POSH Act within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and if it is maintainable, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
MAY 22, 2024 KA
LPA No.417/2024 Page 3 of 3