Bombay High Court Orders Action Against ITI Principal In 2011 Workplace Sexual Harassment Case

"This is a case where the respondent no.1 has submitted detailed complaint alleging sexual harassment against the respondent no.2 on 6th May 2011. The petitioners failed to take any action with respect to said complaint…..Therefore, we are issuing directions to the concerned authorities of the petitioners to take appropriate action in accordance with law within a period of four months", according to the judgment authored by Justice Madhav Jamdar.

The division bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta however, set aside Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's (MAT) direction to reinstate the craft instructor observing that her resignation was voluntary and there was no relation between the resignation and the alleged sexual harassment.

"The complaint of the respondent no.1, as canvassed before the Court, that the respondent no.2 (principal M. P. Sonawane) was sexually harassing her and that was the real reason which drove her to tender resignation is not, in my opinion, the real cause. For the last one year of her service, the respondent no.1 was not under the administrative control of the respondent no.2.," CJ Datta stated in his concurring opinion.

The Craft Instructor submitted her resignation on December 6, 2012. In 2014, she filed an original application before the MAT challenging the order of the government accepting her resignation. The tribunal allowed her application and reinstated her with full back wages. The state government's review application was dismissed. Hence, it approached the court in the present writ petition.

Advocate SK Nair for the state government submitted that she resigned, deposited one month's salary in lieu of the notice period and handed over charge to the group instructor in the presence of the principal. She cannot withdraw her resignation once it is accepted by the authorities, Nair contended.

Advocate Sumant Deshpande for the Craft Instructor submitted that she had made a sexual harassment complaint against the principal M. P. Sonawane on May 6, 2011 but no action was taken against him. Under Sonawane's influence, charge sheet for unauthorised absence was issued to her on December 3, 2012 despite her having applied for maternity leave. Hence, she resigned under duress.

She had specifically mentioned not being well and not being able to make a long journey for work in her resignation letter. She also mentioned that her applications for maternity leave were not being considered. This clearly shows that the contention that she resigned under duress is incorrect, the court said.

She had produced a medical certificate advising her strict bed rest. The court noted that she had applied for temporary transfer to Thane or Mumbai for Navi Mumbai despite being advised complete bed rest.

The court noted that at the time of her resignation, Sonawane was not the principal of the institution as he had been transferred from Vikramgad almost a year earlier. In her original application before the tribunal, the Craft Instructor had alleged that Sonawane refused to accept her request to withdraw the resignation. This allegation is completely false, the court said adding that she did not approach the tribunal with clean hands.

The court said that she could have joined the duty after her maternity leave ended in May 2012 but did not do so. She did not attend her duties in Vikramgad possibly because she wanted posting at Mumbai, Thane city, or Navi Mumbai, the court opined.

The court noted that she immediately resigned once the charge sheet was issued to her. It is clear that she resigned to avoid the departmental enquiry, the court said.

The court said that the tribunal completely overlooked significant aspects of the matter. Hence, the tribunal order suffers from non-application of mind and is perverse, the court held.

"The resignation submitted by the respondent no.1 is voluntary and not under duress and the learned Tribunal has completely overlooked many significant aspects……Thus, this is not a case where the respondent no.1 is entitled for the relief which has been granted by the learned Tribunal", the court held.

The Craft Instructor had submitted representation to the Director of Vocational Education and Training complaining about Sonawane's conduct. A Complaint Redressal Committee was constituted which submitted its report. The court noted that no further concrete action was taken. 

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 3822 of 2022

Case title – State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Smt. ABC and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 483