The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 was enacted to protect women from sexual harassment not just inside office buildings, but across all work-related settings. To achieve this, Section 2(o) defines “workplace” very broadly. It includes government offices, private organisations, hospitals, sports complexes, and even dwelling places where domestic workers are employed.
The sub-clause most relevant here is Section 2(o)(v), which extends the definition to:
“any place visited by the employee arising out of or during the course of employment including transportation by the employer for undertaking such journey.”
This is where the debate begins. Does a shared autorickshaw that an employee hails on his own to reach the office count as a “workplace”? The Bombay High Court has now answered this definitively.
Background Facts of the Case
Siddhesh Satpute, a fourteen-year employee of the State Bank of India, commuted to his office at Bandra Kurla Complex every day by taking a local train from Navi Mumbai to Kurla, and then a shared autorickshaw the rest of the way. On 24th March 2023, he did the same.
That morning, three passengers shared the back seat: Satpute, Respondent No. 3 (a chef working at a different company and the complainant before the IC), and one other person. The road was in bad condition. Satpute’s case was that any contact with Respondent No. 3 was purely incidental, due to the bumpy ride and cramped seating. Respondent No. 3 alleged inappropriate touching.
She stopped the autorickshaw near the American Embassy at BKC, sprayed pepper spray in Satpute’s eyes, and later called the police. A case was registered under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code. She also filed a complaint before the ICC of her own company.
The ICC forwarded the complaint to SBI, whose Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) conducted an inquiry and found Satpute guilty of sexual harassment by order dated 29th August 2023, recommending disciplinary action under SBI’s service rules.
Satpute filed an appeal before SBI’s Deputy General Manager and simultaneously approached the Bombay High Court by way of a writ petition, challenging the ICC’s order on jurisdictional grounds.
What the Court Reasoned
The Division Bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla reasoned through the case in three steps:
1. Maintainability of Writ Petition
The Court held that where a pure question of jurisdiction is raised, a petitioner need not be relegated to an alternate remedy. Jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and can be directly addressed by the Court.
2. Interpretation of Section 2(o)(v)
The Court held that not all transportation used by an employee qualifies as “workplace”. The phrase refers specifically to transportation provided by the employer. Since the autorickshaw was a public shared vehicle arranged and paid for by Satpute himself, it did not fall within the definition of “workplace”.
3. Jurisdictional Fact Requirement
The Court rejected the ICC’s approach of deciding merits before jurisdiction. It held that existence of a “workplace” is a jurisdictional fact that must be determined first.
“The law would mandate such an Internal Committee to first decide the jurisdictional question whether the alleged sexual harassment has taken place at a ‘workplace’ and only if the answer to that question is in the affirmative, would the Internal Committee have jurisdiction to conduct a further enquiry in the matter.”
The ICC’s order was therefore quashed, with no opinion expressed on the merits of the harassment allegation.
Analysis of the Judgment
This ruling is significant on both substantive and procedural grounds.
Substantive aspect: The Court has clarified that Section 2(o)(v) applies only when transportation is employer-provided. This creates a limitation in coverage where privately arranged travel is excluded, even if work-related interactions occur during such travel.
Procedural aspect: Jurisdiction must be determined before merits. An ICC proceeding without establishing workplace jurisdiction is invalid and liable to be set aside.
Key Learnings for HR, POSH Professionals & Internal Committees
- Employer-provided transport is essential: Only transport arranged by the employer falls within POSH jurisdiction under Section 2(o)(v).
- Jurisdiction comes first: ICCs must first determine whether the incident occurred in a legally defined “workplace”.
- Cross-employer complaints need caution: Complaints forwarded from other organisations require strict jurisdictional scrutiny.
Final Word
The Bombay High Court did not decide whether harassment occurred. It only held that the SBI ICC lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint.
The underlying allegation remains open for appropriate proceedings. However, the judgment clearly reinforces that legal jurisdiction under POSH Act is not limitless, it is defined and must be established before inquiry into merits begins.
Take the first step today. Schedule an exploratory consultation via WhatsApp at +91 8928021419 or email rutuja@theoutcastcollective.com with our POSH experts and start building a workplace where everyone belongs.