Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

NMIMS KPMSOL NAVI MUMBAI 1ST INTRA MOOT-COURT COMPETITION

T09

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, AT NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTERS OF:


1. Ms. Aparna Jhingan
2. Mr. Carlos Latore … PETITIONERS
v.
1. Majorca D …RESPONDENT
IN THE MATTERS OF:
1. The State of Delhi …APPELLANT
v.
1. Mr. Rajneesh Behl … RESPONDENT

APPEAL NO.__OF 2015


Clubbed with
WRIT PETITION NO.__OF 2015/NO.__OF 2015

On submission to the Hon’ble High court of Delhi, at New Delhi


Under Article 226 of The Indian Constitution

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

COUNSEL APPEARING ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER


NMIMS KPMSOL NAVI MUMBAI 1ST INTRA MOOT-COURT COMPETITION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………
2. CASES CITED……………………………………………………………………
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………
4. STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………………….
5. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………….
6. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………….
7. PRAYER………………………………………………………………………….
NMIMS KPMSOL NAVI MUMBAI 1ST INTRA MOOT-COURT COMPETITION

ABBREVIATIONS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUES

1. SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN AT WORKPLACE (PREVENTION,


PROBIHITION AND REDRESSAL) ACT, 2013.
2. SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN AT WORKPLACE (PREVENTION,
PROBIHITION AND REDRESSAL) RULES, 2013.
3. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
4. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
5. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
6. THE INDECENT REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1986
7. THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, 1993
8. INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1946

BOOKS, ARTICLES AND GUIDELINES

1. THE VISHAKA GUIDELINES


2. MANISHA MISHRA, LAW ON PROTECTION AGAINST SEXUAL
HARASSEMENT AGAINST WOMEN, 1ST EDITION.
3. D. D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 22ND
EDITION. 2018.
4. GUIDELINES ON____

CASES

1. VISHAKA & ORS. V. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. AIR 1997 SC 3011
2. CAPTAIN RC KAUSHAL V. VEENA KAUSHAL AIR 1978 SC 1807
3. DR S MURUGAN V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU SCC ONLINE MAD 519
4. APPAREL EXPERT PROMOTION COUNCIL V. A K CHOPRA
5. BHUPENDRANATH HAZARIKA V. STATE OF ASSAM
6. VIDYA AKHAVE V. UNION OF INDIA
7. RENUKA MUKHERJEE V. VODAFONE ESSAR LTD & ORS.
8. RUCHIKA SINGH CHHABRA V. M/S AIR FRANCE INDIA & ANR.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

1. Both the petitioners are residents of Delhi who therefore, fall within the jurisdiction of
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
2. The Petitioner No. 1 has approached this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Leave has been accordingly granted. The Respondent No. 1 humbly
submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
3. The Petitioner No. 2 has approached this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Leave has been accordingly granted. The Respondent No. 1 humbly
submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

The brief facts necessary for deciding this writ petition are:

 The Petitioner No. 1 was working as General Manager operations with the
Respondent company. The Petitioner No. 1 had alleged sexual harassment at
workplace by a senior guest relations officer who is a contract employee engaged by
the Petitioner No. 2. The Petitioner No. 1 had reported the alleged act of sexual
harassment to the Respondent company. The Respondent company in the absence of a
duly constituted ICC, hurriedly set up an inadequate committee to deal with the
matter. The committee after hearing the parties and cross examining witnesses and
after analysing all facts could not conclusively determine that the senior guest relation
officer was guilty of sexual harassment and held that the alleged actions of the said
guest relation officer did not occur within the workplace.
 Upon being informed of the decision of the committee, the Petitioner No. 1 enquired
why the matter was not referred to the local police and held that the Respondent
company was under an obligation to report the incident.
 The Petitioner No. 2 upon hearing about the incident and to the fact that his employee
had been subjected to a disciplinary enquiry by the Respondent company, claimed
that the said guest relation officer being a contract worker had no right to initiate any
action against the said officer. He also contended that the alleged incident had not
happened at the workplace and that no action can be initiated against the said officer.
 In order to amicably settle the matter, the management of the Respondent company
apologised to Petitioner No. 1 for the unwarranted incident. The Respondent company
recommended that the Petitioner No. 1 withdraw her complaint of sexual harassment
and in doing so would be rewarded a plum posting. The Respondent company
threatened Petitioner No. 1 that if she did not agree for the settlement proposed, her
probation period would be considered ‘Not Satisfactory’. Upon the Petitioner No. 1’s
refusal to agree to the said settlement, the Respondent company terminated her
employment.
 The matter being in public domain, the Delhi Police took suo moto cognizance of the
allegation and lodged an FIR against the guest relation officer and thereafter, a charge
sheet was framed against the said officer in the court of Judicial Magistrate at Patiala
House Court. The said court acquitted the guest relation officer on the ground that in
the absence of a complaint by the Petitioner No. 1, the police cannot take cognizance
of the offence.
 An appeal was filed before the Sessions Court at Delhi South District, against the said
decision, but it also upheld the decision of the Judicial Magistrate at Patiala House
Court. Being aggrieved by this decision an appeal was filed before this Hon’ble High
Court.
 Petitioner No. 1 has approached this Hon’ble High Court and filed a writ against the
Respondent company for non-initiation of a police complaint and also for her
subsequent unlawful termination and also alleged that the committee constituted by
the Respondent company was not in accordance with the law.
 Petitioner No. 2 also approached this Hon’ble High Court under a similar writ
alleging that the Respondent company had wrongly initiated sexual harassment
proceedings against his employee who was a contract worker and that too for
allegations around actions committed outside the workplace.
 This Hon’ble Court has admitted the writ petition filed by Petitioner No. 1 and
Petitioner No. 2 and clubbed the same along with an appeal filed by the State against
the order of the Sessions Court of Delhi South District upholding the acquittal of the
guest relation officer.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Is the present case maintainable before the High Court of Delhi?

2. Can an employer initiate sexual harassment proceedings against a contract worker?

3. Do Rajneesh’s actions amount to sexual harassment at the workplace?

4. Was the sexual harassment committee validly constituted by the Hotel?

5. Was the Hotel under an obligation to initiate a police complaint and is the aggrieved
woman required to complain for the court to take action?

6. Was Apsara’s termination valid under law?

7. Which legal forum and laws are appropriate for the case?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. That the present case before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi is maintainable
Petitioner No. 1 has filed a writ petition under Article 226 which, the High Court, in
its wisdom has decided to admit into its court.

Petitioner No. 2 has filed a writ petition under 226 which, the High Court, in its
wisdom has decided to admit into its court.

2. That an employer can initiate sexual harassment proceedings against a contract


worker
An employer can initiate sexual harassment proceedings against a contract worker as
given under sec. 2(f) of the POSH Act.

3. That Rajneesh’s actions amount to sexual harassment at workplace


ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. That the present case before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi is maintainable

The Petitioner No. 1 was subjected to sexual harassment at workplace at the hands of a
senior employee engaged under contract by the Respondent company which violated her
fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 22 of the Constitution as has been laid
down by the Apex Court in Vishaka's case as held by the Apex Court by not duly
constituting the Complaints Committee for redressal of the complaints of sexual
harassment at work place. And also for not for taking actions to file a police complaint.