But the Bombay High Court just handed ICs a reminder that the very first question has to come before that,
not “what happened,” but “can we even hear this?”
The Case
In Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute v. State Bank of India & Ors., an SBI employee was found
guilty of sexual harassment by the bank’s Internal Committee, over an incident alleged to have occurred in a
shared autorickshaw, the last leg of his daily commute from Kurla station to the office at BKC.
He challenged the finding in the Bombay High Court, arguing the IC never had the authority to hear the complaint
in the first place, because the autorickshaw wasn’t a “workplace” under the POSH Act.
What the Court Actually Decided — and Didn’t
The bench was explicit: it made no finding on whether harassment occurred. That question was left open.
What it did decide was narrower and, in some ways, more consequential: a shared public autorickshaw, hailed on
the street and not arranged or funded by the employer, doesn’t meet the statutory definition of “workplace”
under Section 2(o) of the POSH Act.
Without that connection, the IC had no jurisdiction to investigate at all, and the finding was set aside on that
basis alone.
Why This Matters More Than It Looks
The 2013 Act’s definition of “workplace” was written with a certain kind of commute in mind, like employer-provided
buses, factory transport, and government vehicles.
Most urban employees today don’t move that way. Which means a growing category of real, everyday work-adjacent
situations, like shared cabs, ride-shares, and informal carpools, may fall outside an IC’s reach unless the employer
specifically arranged the transport.
That’s a gap the judgment surfaces rather than closes.
What ICs Should Take Away From This
- Jurisdiction is a threshold question, not a formality:
Before any inquiry begins, the IC must actively determine whether the alleged incident has a sufficient connection
to the workplace or employment relationship. This isn’t optional groundwork; it’s a legal precondition. - “Where” isn’t the only test, but it isn’t irrelevant either:
An incident away from office premises can still fall within POSH’s scope where there’s a genuine workplace nexus,
such as a work trip, an employer-arranged commute, or a work-related event. The absence of that nexus is what
proved fatal here. - Employer-provided vs. self-arranged transport is now a live distinction:
If your organisation provides or subsidises transport, that likely brings related incidents within reach.
If employees are commuting independently, even to and from the same job, that connection isn’t automatic. - Document the jurisdictional analysis separately from the merits:
An IC that skips straight to investigating the allegation, without first recording why it believes it has
jurisdiction, is now more exposed to exactly this kind of challenge.
The full judgment and legal analysis are worth reading in detail, particularly on how narrowly the Court read the
statutory language, and what it means for organisations whose employees increasingly commute informally.
📎Satpute v. SBI: Autorickshaw POSH Case Explained
📎When Does the POSH Act Apply? IC Jurisdiction Explained
Key Highlights: POSH Train-the-Trainer Programme
TOC has conducted several POSH Train-the-Trainer (TTT) programmes for large organisations to help
build a strong pool of internal trainers who can confidently facilitate important and often complex workplace
conversations.
The aim was to go beyond simply understanding the concepts and help participants learn how to explain them,
handle questions, navigate nuance, and facilitate real-life scenarios.
Through pre- and post-assessments, interactive case studies, and teach-backs, participants were evaluated
throughout the certification journey.
Participants particularly appreciated the clarity of the concepts, relevant examples, and the depth of discussions.
Many shared that the programme made them “stop and think” and look beyond what may seem straightforward at first.
Participants in the session mentioned that they received:
- Clarity on what counts as POSH and what doesn’t.
- Direction on how any written complaint must be documented.
- Learnt how to respond when someone comes to them with a complaint.
- Learnt how the ICC process and complaint filing actually works.
- Understood things from the other person’s side.
- Better clarity on scope, definitions, and how to facilitate sessions.
Know more about our flagship TTT programme →
Contact Us for Similar Interventions in Your Organisation
NCW Handbook: From Guidance to Action
The NCW Handbook provides practical guidance for organisations on preventing and addressing sexual harassment at the workplace,
but knowing what it says is only the first step.
This webinar breaks down the Handbook into clear, actionable compliance requirements covering the IC, employer
responsibilities, reporting, documentation, and key compliance practices.
The session will help HR and compliance teams translate the Handbook into action, identify gaps in their existing
POSH framework, and understand what a compliant setup should look like.
It will also highlight areas where organisations may need a deeper compliance audit or specialised IC support.
Key Takeaways
- Assess the composition and validity of your IC.
- Understand the She-Box Portal and its registration.
- Identify common compliance gaps in your organisation.
- Know when and how to seek a POSH audit or IC support.
Don’t miss out!