Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 & Compensation Cases

S. No. Case name Citation Court name observation

1. Vishakha Vs State Of Rajasthan 1997 7 SCC 384

2 Ms.G vs Isg Novasoft Original Petition No.463 of Madras High

Technologies Ltd 2012 Court

3 Manohar Dhonde (Prof.) & ors. W. P. No. 544 of 2004;
Vs State of Maharashtra & ors. 2007(1) Bom.C.R. 417
Bombay High Where Complaint was filed against 8 staff
Court member and. Each of the accused held liable to
pay cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Committee evaluated as
follows:
Para 26 & 37
Amongst the general observations, the
Committee has observed that one of the key issues
that need to be highlighted is the mental trauma
the complainants had to go through, along with
long travelling from Aurangabad to Commission's
office at Mumbai for more than ten visits. So far
as mental trauma is concerned, we are unable to

4.
Richardson v Oracle Corporation
Australia Pty Ltd
provide any practical solution. But, troubles, the
complainants were required to suffer because of
the journey on ten occasions from Aurangabad to
Mumbai,
2013 fca 102
. In this case, the complainant (an employee of
Oracle) was continuously harassed by another co-
worker, who passed sexually suggestive remarks
over a period of time. The court held Oracle
vicariously liable for the act of its employee as it
failed to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual
harassment, mainly on two grounds:
i. Failure of Oracle to provide adequate training
to its employees. The training provided by the
company was inadequate as it was found out that
the companys training module was a global
training module which was not tailored to reflect
the law in Australia. Moreover, the sexual
harassment policy of Oracle at that point of time,
was not in consonance with laws in Australia.
ii. Improper and insensitive handling of the
complaint and subsequent investigation by the HR
of the company.
Oracle Corporation in Australia was ordered by
 the Full court of the Federal Court to pay
$1,30,000 as compensation to the complainant in
a sexual harassment case taking into account the
community expectation of higher value to
compensation for pain and suffering and loss of
enjoyment of life of the complainant due to
sexual harassment

5. AIR 1999 SC 625; 1999 Supreme court

Apparel Export Promotion AIR SCW 274: 1999 Lab IC Facts: The respondent was working as a Private
Council Vs. A. K. Chopra 918 Secretary to the Chairman of the Apparel Export
Promotion Council, the appellant. It was alleged
that on 12-8-1988, he tried to molest a woman
employee of the Council, Miss X (Name
withheld by court) who was at the relevant time
working as a Clerk-cum-Typist. She submitted a
written complaint. The respondent was placed
under suspension vide an order dated 18th August,
1988. A charge-sheet was served on him to whom
he gave a reply denying the allegations. The
Enquiry Officer after considering the
documentary and oral evidence and the
circumstances of the case arrived at the
conclusion that the respondent had acted against
moral sanctions and that his acts against
Miss X did not withstand the test of decency and
modesty. He, therefore held the charges levelled
against the respondent as proved.

The respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High

Court inter alia challenging his removal from
service. On January 30, 1992, the writ petition
was allowed and respondent Nos. 1 and 3 were
directed to act upon the decision of the Staff
Committee, assuming as if the decision, as
alleged, had been taken at the 34th Meeting of the
Staff Committee on 25th July, 1990. The appellant
challenged the Judgment and Order of the High
Court dated 30th January, 1992, through Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3204 of 1992 in the
Supreme Court.

Decision: In a case involving charge of sexual

harassment or attempt to sexually molest, the
courts are required to examine broader
probabilities of the case and not get swayed by
insignificant discrepancies or narrow
technicalities or dictionary meaning of the
Expression "molestation". They must examine the
entire material to determine the genuineness of
the complaint. The statement of the victim must
 be appreciated in the background of the entire
case.

It was further held that each incident of sexual

harassment at place of work, results in violation
of fundamental right to gender equalities and right
to life and personal liberty.

It was also further held that mere want of actual

assault or touch by delinquent did not cease to be
outrageous. It amounts to sexual harassment and
the court is not to normally interfere with either
the factual findings regarding guilt or with penalty
or punishment imposed by departmental
authorities.

6. 1996 AIR 309, 1995 SCC Supreme Court Facts; Rupal Deol Bajaj was an IAS Officer
Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S.Gill
(6) 194 belonging to Punjab Cadre. She lodged a FIR
(General Case) against Mr.KPS Gill the Director General of
Police u/s 341,342.352,354 and 509 of IPC.
On the said date, in the party of KPS Gill the
accused around 10.pm walked across a group of
ladies and joined them. After sometime some of
the ladies started leaving and going into the
house. The victim didnt notice that Mr.KPS Gill
was misbehaving with them.

7. Arati Durgaram Gavandi,
Managing.Director,
Tata Metaliks Limited, & anr.
KPS Gill then called the victim to talk about
something. On realisation by victim a out of order
behaviour by Gill, she avoided going.
After a while Gill reached out to her amongst the
other ladies who were sitting together and ordered
her in an obnoxious manner to get up and come
along. She resisted and turned back and started
leaving, when he slapped her back.
Decision;
In 1998 the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Gill booked Gill u/s 354 i.e. outraging modesty of
a women and u/s 509 i.e. an act, word, gesture
intended to insult a lady.
He was sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for
3months and simple imprisonment for 2 months
along with fine of Rs.200000.
Appeals were made into Supreme Court of India
wherein the punishment was turned into probation
in 2005.
Vs. WRIT PETITION NO.8826 Bombay High Facts; Here a lady supervisor was subject to
OF 2004 Court sexual harassment at the hands of the Deputy GM
at the plant. The lady sought an inquiry and the
Management, with the help of an advocate,
conducted an inquiry. The perpetrator was
exonerated on the basis of this and the services of
the woman concerned was terminated. Para 6
She challenged her termination in a complaint
under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade
Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices
Act, 1971, which decided in her favour and
declared that the employer was guilty of unfair
labour practices and granted reinstatement with
consequential benefits.
8. U.S.Verma Vs. National [163 (2009) DLT 557], Delhi High Facts: Two teachers, Jayashree Kannan and
Commission for Women Court Shayista Raza, and a former receptionist
(Similar Case) ShirniKaul accused the principal of Delhi Public
School, Faridabad, U.S. Verma, of vindictiveness
because they spurned his sexual advances. The
teachers, resigned and are accusing U.S. Verma of
spreading canards against them and scuttling their
job prospects.
The Delhi High Court in the case of
JayshriKannan v. U.S.Verma and Ors ordered the
Delhi Public School (DPS) Society to compensate
three of its teachers, who had alleged sexual
harassment by the principal of Faridabad branch
of the school, to the tune Rs.2.5 lakh each.
Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt in his order asked DPS
to pay Rs.2.5 lakh each to three of its teachers and
Rs.1.5 lakh to another employee of the school
who had accused the then school principal U.S.
Verma of sexual harassment. The teachers were
forced to resign from their positions following the
allegation and harassment at the workplace.
The court asked the DPS Society to pay the
compensation amount within four weeks. The
case dates back to April 22, 1999, when four
employees of DPS Faridabad accused the
principal of sexual harassment and approached
National Commission for Women (NCW) to
intervene in the matter. the allegations of the
school employees were true. According to the
teachers, the school principal used to harass them
even after they resigned from their jobs. The
Principal also used his influence to harass the
children of the teachers who used to study in the
same school.
 The DPS Society also constituted a committee
following the 1997 Supreme Court guideline that
clearly stated that a sexual harassment committee
has to be constituted immediately. The DPS
committee also found the allegations to be true.
The teachers also alleged that Verma turned
vindictive when they turned down his advances
and issued those memos, stopped their
confirmation, demoted them and insulted them
openly.
9. Medha Kotwal Lele & Others Vs. [2013 (1) SCC 297], Supreme Court The Supreme Court indicated in paragraph 41 that
Union of India the implementation of the guidelines issued in
Vishaka has to be not only in form, but also in
substance and spirit, so as to make available, a
safe and secure environment for women at the
work place. In a subsequent order passed in the
same case, the Supreme Court directed that the
complaints committee as envisaged by the
Supreme Court in Vishaka will be deemed to be
the inquiry authority for the purposes of Central
Civil Services (Conduct) Rules.