Misunderstandings relating to administrative functions at workplace not sexual harassment: Madras High Court

Misunderstandings relating to administrative functions at workplace cannot be classified as sexual harassment, the Madras High Court recently observed while dismissing a plea alleging harassment by a former director at the Loyola college..Justice N Sathish Kumar noted that the petitioner's complaints arose out of conflicts with the accused director in the discharge of certain administrative functions. In this context, the judge remarked that such misunderstandings in the workplace cannot be classified as sexual harassment. .Coupled with this, the Court opined that the sexual harassment allegations were vague and appeared to be an afterthought. "Merely on the basis some personal feud between the 5th Respondent (director) and her (petitioner) in some other transaction particularly with regard to the conduct of the functions and taking a credit in that function or because the petitioner was not getting well with the 5th Respondent and she was not happy and kept away from the participation of the function and she was not given proper importance. Such misunderstandings or happening in the work place cannot be classified as sexual harassment," the Court said..The Court also took the opportunity to reiterate that the Supreme Court has laid down that "sexual harassment" involves "unwelcome sexually determined behavior (whether directly or by implication)." .This would include physical contact or advances, a demand or request for sexual favours, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography or any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature..No such act was found that have been alleged in this case. Rather, the allegations detailed primarily related to financial misappropriation by the former director and the petitioner being kept away from certain Alumni functions or otherwise being harassed since she complained about the alleged misappropriation.."Without showing any instances leading to sexual harassment merely on the basis of some misunderstandings in the work place between superior and thereafter she (petitioner) was changed to some other post in a consolidate pay, every such instance cannot be termed as sexual harassment. If really any complaint has been made to the College and the College is failed to enquire the matter then it can be said that the petitioner's grievance has not been looked into at all by the college management. Whereas her own document shows that she never raised any such complaint to the college management. Therefore, the very allegation of the petitioner that she was subjected to sexual harassment at the hands of the 5th Respondent (director) and which resulted her losing job is not at all made out," the Court concluded..Case background.The Court was dealing with a petition moved by a former Secretary at the Loyola College (petitioner) who alleged harassment by the then director of the Loyola College Alumni Association, Reverend Father Xavier Alphonse SJ. .The petitioner alleged that the harassment had started after she complained about financial misappropriation by the former director in the performance of certain functions relating to a personal trust run by him. After she raised such issues, the director was alleged to have started harassing and abusing the petitioner at every possible instance and behaved in a manner unbecoming of a reverend priest..As per the petitioner, she was later terminated from service and no meaningful action was taken against the former director..The petition moved before the High Court by former Secretary sought reinstatement to service, payment of backwages and compensation, as well as action against the former director under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace [Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal] Act, 2013. .The Court, however, found little basis for the allegations of sexual harassment and noted that the sexual harassment allegations were made for the first time only after a police case was filed against the petitioner's son. No allegation of sexual harassment was made initially in complaints to the college, the Court was told. .The allegations were denied by the college and the former Father Alphonse. .The College opposed the petitioner's plea for reinstatement, stating that she was only hired on a contract basis. In 2014, she was relieved from employment on finding that her services were no longer required and with an offer to pay Rs 50,000 in lieu of notice, the Court was told. .The writ petition filed against Father Alphonse alleging misappropriation and sexual harassment were false, baseless and vexatious, the college and the former director (respondents) asserted. .Along with the former Secretary's petition, the Court also decided a writ petition moved by the Rector of Loyola College which challenged an order passed by the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women. .By the said order, the Commission had ruled that the petitioner had been terminated unreasonably and abruptly. Inter alia, the Commission had also ordered the payment of compensation to Rajashekaran for the "trauma, physical and sexual abuse she has been submitted to.".High Court verdict.The Court, ultimately, ruled in favour of the Loyola College and its former director in so far as the former Secretary's petition was concerned, after factoring in the following:No allegations of sexual harassment or physical abuse were initially made against the former director in the complaints made by the petitioner to the college authorities. Referring to a 2013 email sent by the petitioner, the Court commented, "The entire complaint appears to be with regard to conducting functions in Alumni Association and consequential financial loss. There is no whisper whatsoever made with regard to the so called sexual harassment." It is only in June 2014, in a complaint addressed to the Police Commissioner, that the petitioner alleged that the former director had mentally, emotionally and sexually harassed her. This development took place after the police had begun an investigation against the petitioner's son on a complaint by a Loyola alumni (which the petitioner claimed was on instigation by the former director), the Court noted. However, even in this complaint, the sexual harassment allegations were vague, the Court opined. As stated in the order, "Even in the (copies) sent to the Commissioner of Police through email dated June 14, 2014 except stating that she was harassed mentally and sexually, she has never given specific instances and nature of allegations etc." Having worked earlier in other prominent institutions such as Stella Maris college and Apollo Hospitals as well as with former Chief Ministers, "it cannot be said that the petitioner is not aware of procedure to make a complaint" to the college about the alleged sexual harassment. The petitioner's contention that she was appointed a "regular employee" despite being 60 years old at the time was highly improbable. The main allegation of sexual harassment appears to be an after though raised at a later point in time. "Further the conduct of the petitioner approaching the writ court after the alleged harassment and termination with delay of more than 1 1⁄2 years also indicate that the entire allegation was pressed into service at a later point of time", the Court added. .The Court also ruled in favour of the College Rector in the writ petition filed by him against the order of the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women in the matter. Justice Kumar found that the said order was passed based only on the representation given by the petitioner and without proper enquiry or appreciation of evidence. ."This Court is at loss to understand how the commission has passed such order without proper enquiry and without evidence in this regard. Such conclusion was arrived on the basis of representation made by the writ Petitioner ... Investigation cannot be merely on the basis of submissions of the complaint alone. Only after proper discovery of facts on evidence and records etc," the judge remarked. .The Court also observed that the Commission can only make recommendations to the appropriate authority or the police when a prima facie case is made out. "Such being the position, the Order directing the College to pay huge compensation certainly liable to be interfered and not maintainable and such order is definitely against the very statue under which the Commission was constituted. Therefore, the Order of the Women Commission is necessarily to be set aside," the Court said. .[Read Order]