Case at a Glance
A sexual harassment complaint against a senior programming executive at Zee’s Bhubaneswar office was inquired into by the company’s Mumbai-based corporate Internal Committee, which recommended his termination. The Labour Court, acting as appellate authority under Section 18 of the PoSH Act, set aside the findings and termination and remanded the matter for a fresh inquiry, because no local members were on the committee and the employee was denied cross-examination and copies of depositions. The Orissa High Court dismissed Zee’s writ petition, holding that “the right of cross-examination has to be read into the 2013 Act and the 2013 Rules”. It did not examine the merits of the complaint.
The employee joined Zee Entertainment’s regional channel office in Bhubaneswar in January 2017 and later became Associate Director Programming Fiction. In May 2024, a woman associated with one of the channel’s shows complained by email that he had made derogatory comments and sought favours through messages and calls. As the local presiding officer was on maternity leave, the complaint was forwarded to the Mumbai head office, and the corporate Internal Committee held video-conference hearings in June and July 2024. The employee denied the allegations. He was given the gist of witness statements but not copies of the depositions, and was not allowed to cross-examine.
The committee’s report of 13 August 2024 recommended termination, and his services were terminated. On his appeal, the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, acting as appellate authority under Section 18(1) of the PoSH Act, by order dated 30 May 2025 set aside the findings and the termination and remanded the matter for a fresh inquiry within 45 days, with the employee either under suspension or resuming duty. Zee challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227, arguing that confronting him with the gist of statements and examining 12 witnesses, including his own, satisfied natural justice.
The Key Question Before the Court
Does a PoSH Act inquiry that excludes local committee members and denies the accused employee cross-examination and copies of depositions satisfy the requirements of natural justice?
Cross-Examination Read Into the PoSH Framework
Justice B.P. Routray framed two issues: whether constituting the committee at Mumbai was fair, and whether due procedure and a fair hearing were followed before termination. The court examined Sections 4, 9, 11, 13 and 18 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and Rules 7 and 9 of the 2013 Rules, against the background of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 08 SC CK 0003, (1997) 6 SCC 241. Relying on Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, (2023) 05 SC CK 0040, (2024) 1 SCC 632 and Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, (2023) 04 SC CK 0002, (2023) 13 SCC 401, it held that “the principles of natural justice require the decision is to be made fairly and impartially”, including disclosure of the material relied on.
Following the Calcutta High Court in Institute of Hotel Management, Catering Technology and Applied Nutrition v. Suddhasil Dey, 2020 SCC OnLine Cal 3320, the court held that “the right of cross-examination has to be read into the 2013 Act and the 2013 Rules”. It noted, with reference to Thomas Antony v. State of Kerala, (2025) 03 KL CK 1316, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 1762, that alternative modes may be adopted where a complainant cannot depose freely, but here the committee gave no reasons for denying cross-examination and copies. It also found that the absence of a local presiding officer on leave did not justify excluding all Bhubaneswar members. The appellate authority’s reasons for remand were therefore valid.
What the Court Actually Held
- The right of cross-examination is to be read into the PoSH Act and Rules; denying it, and denying copies of depositions and documents without reasons, violated natural justice.
- Constituting the inquiry committee at Mumbai without any members from the Bhubaneswar office was not adequately justified by the local presiding officer’s leave.
- The court did not examine the merits of the complaint.
- The writ petition was dismissed and the appellate authority’s order of 30 May 2025, setting aside the findings and termination and remanding for fresh inquiry, was affirmed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It reminds employers that PoSH inquiries, while protecting complainants, must also give the accused a fair hearing.
- It signals that head-office committees may face scrutiny where local units are bypassed without good reason.
- Unfair procedure can undo an outcome on appeal, prolonging the process for everyone, including the complainant.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Employers and ICC Members
- Ensure committees are constituted at the relevant administrative unit, or record clear reasons otherwise.
- Supply copies of depositions and documents relied upon to the accused.
- Allow cross-examination, or record reasons and adopt an alternative fair method where the complainant cannot depose freely.
For Counsel
- Rely on Aureliano Fernandes and Suddhasil Dey on natural justice in PoSH inquiries.
- A gist of statements may not substitute for copies and cross-examination.
- Appeals under Section 18 can lead to remand rather than acquittal on merits.
Key Takeaways
- Cross-examination is read into PoSH inquiries.
- Copies of depositions must be supplied to the accused.
- Bypassing local committee members needs justification.
- Termination was set aside and a fresh inquiry ordered; merits not decided.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the High Court find the harassment allegations false?
No. It did not examine the merits. It only upheld the remand for a fresh inquiry because of procedural unfairness.
Must an accused employee always be allowed to cross-examine in a PoSH inquiry?
The court held that the right of cross-examination is to be read into the Act and Rules, while noting that alternative methods may be used where the complainant cannot depose freely; here no reasons were given for denying it.
What happens next?
The matter goes back for a fresh inquiry in terms of the appellate authority’s order of 30 May 2025.
Conclusion
The Orissa High Court treated fairness to the accused employee as part of a credible PoSH process, upholding the remand without saying anything on whether the complaint was true.
Practical takeaway: Internal Committees should share the evidence relied on, permit cross-examination or a reasoned alternative, and include local members where the Act requires them.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com