From the pitch to the workplace: Ensuring fair play through natural justice

When Harmanpreet Kaur ran backwards and caught that final wicket at midnight on November 3, 2025, securing the World Cup for the Indian women’s cricket team, it was more than just a victory; it was a watershed moment. This victory confirmed a powerful truth: women are breaking barriers and reaching unprecedented heights in every field imaginable.

This success is not luck; it is the result of relentless effort, pushing limits, unwavering dedication and breaking the glass ceiling. Just as there are rules of fair play on the pitch, there are essential laws ensuring fair play and protection for women in the workplace. Topping this list is the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). Its primary goal is to provide a safe and secure environment while ensuring necessary safeguards are in place for working women. However, one could notice that a lot of weightage is given to procedures in an inquiry conducted under the Act.

Recently, the Madras High Court set aside the compulsory retirement punishment imposed by a University pursuant to the recommendation of the Internal Committee (IC) since an opportunity of cross examination was not provided to the respondent professor to cross-examine the complainant. Similarly, in another decision, a Chennai labour court set aside the punishment imposed on a workman who was found guilty of sexual harassment by the IC since cross-examination was not provided to the workman. In the said case, while the inquiry report was signed by the IC members, it was not dated. However, the covering letter accompanying the report was signed by the presiding officer with the date. The judge, amongst other discrepancies, found that the inquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner. These are only some examples of how courts handle POSH Act case appeals.

Section 11 of the Act and Rule 7 of the POSH Rules provide the methodology of conducting inquiry into a complaint of sexual harassment at the workplace. When one reads Section 11 with Rule 7, the following procedure emanates:

1. After failure of conciliation, inquiry should commence.

2. Inquiry should be conducted in accordance with service rules and principles of natural justice.

3. The complainant should give 6 copies of the complaint to the Internal Committee (IC).

4. The IC should share a copy of the complaint within 7 working days to the respondent.

5. The respondent is required to submit his response within a period not exceeding 10 working days, along with names and addresses.

6. Legal practitioners are not allowed during the inquiry and minimum 3 members (including the presiding officer) form a quorum to conduct the inquiry.

7. The entire inquiry should be conducted within a period of 90 working days.

Only the above procedure is prescribed under the Act. It does not lay down each and every step the IC should follow while conducting an inquiry. Ot does not say that it is compulsory to record the statement of the complainant; that it is essential to allow cross examination; that both the parties should be present when witnesses are enquired etc.

These are some of the methods prescribed while conducting a domestic inquiry under other labour laws and the same analogy is being applied to analyse POSH inquiries, which is resulting in reversals of IC decisions. The issues in other labour laws like the Industrial Disputes Act are distinguishable from POSH Act cases, which are very sensitive by nature. While the former is between the management and an employee, the latter is between two employees.

One should note that the IC may not be well equipped to follow the legal nuances and act like a court. While they are vested with the powers of a quasi-judicial authority, there needs to be clarity as to what procedures that can be dispensed with and which ones ought to be compulsorily followed by the IC.

The phrase ‘natural justice’ is not capable of precise definition. The underlying principle of natural justice, evolved under the common law, is to check the arbitrary exercise of power. Therefore, the principle implies a duty to act fairly. The aim of the principles of natural justice is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. They do not supplant the law, but supplement it [Sahara India v. CIT (2008)].

In the case of Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India & Others, it was observed that after the Maneka Gandhi case, procedural fairness was no longer viewed merely as a means to secure a just outcome, but a requirement that holds inherent value in itself. In view of this shift, the courts are now precluded from solely assessing procedural infringements based on whether the procedure would have prejudiced the outcome of the case. Instead, the courts would have to decide if the procedure that was followed infringed upon the right to a fair and reasonable procedure, independent of the outcome.

The application of principles of natural justice must always conform to the scheme of the Act and the subject matter of the case. There is no such thing as technical natural justice. The requirements of natural justice depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject matter to be dealt with and so on [Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1986)].

When the facts of the case would demonstrate that no real prejudice was caused to a party aggrieved by an order, the courts should certainly not interfere. Such a complaint and/or a genuine grievance of the breach of principles of natural justice accompanied with the prejudice it would cause, is required to be made with utmost promptness [Mohamad Farhan A Shaikh v. ACIT (2021)].

Considering the above provisions, some of the questions that need to be answered are: was the accused/respondent aware of the complaint that he is facing? Was he given sufficient opportunity to put forth his case? Was the inquiry conducted in an unbiased manner? As far as cross-examination under POSH Act is concerned, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the Ashok Kumar Singh case held that cross-examination can be conducted by a questionnaire. Courts should consider the sensitivity of the case since the complainant may not be in a position to withstand cross-examination, especially if the respondent is a person in a position in power. The Supreme Court in the Aureliano Fernandes case held that the ICC is not bound to strictly follow the step-by-step procedure as has been stipulated in the CCS(CCA) Rules, which permits the IC to inquire into the sexual harassment complaint "as far as practicable in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Rules".

These reversals create painful consequences, both for women who summoned the courage to complain and for employers facing uncertainty. To reconcile the POSH Act’s simplified, time-bound system with the rigorous standards of appellate courts, organizations must invest heavily in training.

ICs must be regularly trained not just on the POSH Act itself, but specifically on the legal expectations surrounding:

• Managing cross-examination (even if indirect or written, as long as it ensures fairness).

• Meticulous documentation of every step, including dates and signatures.

• Adhering to the principles of natural justice as interpreted by the judiciary.

Only by fortifying the IC's procedural integrity can we ensure that the courage shown by complainants and the efforts of the IC are not undone on a technicality, guaranteeing true fair play in the workplace. 

Madhri Guruswamy is a practising advocate in the Madras High Court and Partner at Advit Law Chambers.