India: Any Unwelcome Behaviour at the Workplace Amounts to Sexual Harassment Irrespective of the Intent

Authors: Ivana Chatterjee, Snehal Walia

In a judgement by the Madras High Court held that any unwelcome or inappropriate behaviour at the workplace amounts to sexual harassment under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 irrespective of the respondent’s intent.

In the case of HCL Technologies Ltd. v. N. Parsarthy[1], a male employee (“Respondent”) was found guilty of sexually harassing multiple women employees by the Internal Complaints Committee (“IC”) at the petitioner company (“Company”) constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”). In the instant case, the Company challenged the Principal Labour Court’s (“Labour Court”) order wherein it had quashed the IC’s findings against the Respondent before the Madras High Court (“High Court”).

The Respondent, in the present case, was working on a supervisory post in the Company. Three women employees (“Complainants”) working under his supervision raised their complaints to the IC regarding multiples instances of the Respondent’s inappropriate behaviour. These instances included the Respondent a) standing in close physical proximity with the first complainant and insisting her to shake hands with him; b) touching the second complainant’s shoulder and telling her to remove her clothes for her physical measurements and c) asking the third complainant about her menstrual cycle. The Complainants stated that these instances had made them feel uncomfortable. Consequently, the IC conducted the investigation and found the respondent guilty of sexual harassment under with the POSH Act. However, the Respondent filed an appeal against the IC’s findings before the Labour Court. The Labour Court quashed the IC’s findings primarily on the ground that the Respondent was not given a fair opportunity of hearing. Subsequently, the Company filed a writ petition challenging the Labour Court’s order before the High Court.

While challenging the Labour Court’s order, the Company argued that the Labour Court acted beyond its jurisdiction by interfering with the IC’s proceedings. On the other hand, the Respondent inter alia argued that a) his behaviour did not amount to sexual harassment since all his actions and comments as alleged by the Complainants were in furtherance of his official supervisory duties and b) the IC neither provided him with the CCTV footage showing his alleged conduct nor allowed him to cross-examine the witnesses and Complainants.

After considering the above-stated arguments, the High Court observed that the definition of “sexual harassment”[2] under the POSH Act places significance on the impact of an act on the aggrieved woman rather than the intention behind it. In the present case, the Respondent made physical advances and comments towards the Complainants under the guise of performing his supervisory duties. However, such conduct was considered unwelcome by them. Further, the High Court stated that the IC is not bound to provide the CCTV footage to the Respondent or allow him to cross-examine the witnesses or the Complainants directly. Given this, the High Court held that the Respondent’s inappropriate behaviour with the Complainants amounted to sexual harassment. The High Court also held that the Labour Court could not have interfered with the IC’s findings unless the due process of law was not followed during the investigation. Therefore, the High Court set aside the Labour Court’s order quashing the IC’s findings.

[1] 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 579.

[2] Section 2(n) of the POSH Act.

Key Action Points for Human Resources and In-house Counsel

In light of the above judgement, the members of the IC constituted at various organisations must focus on the impact of the respondent’s conduct on the aggrieved person while conducting investigations. The respondent’s intent would be irrelevant in case the aggrieved person considers the respondent’s conduct to be unwelcome. To this end, employers should also conduct regular trainings to sensitize the employees as well as the IC members about the POSH Act.