'Protecting Women Employees From Sexual Harassment At Workplace Is Public Duty': Madras High Court Tells Railway Employees Co-op Society
The Madras High Court has criticised the Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society for not taking appropriate action on a sexual harassment complaint made by one of its woman employees. Rejecting the society's argument that a writ petition would not be maintainable against the credit society, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy ruled that protecting women employees from sexual harassment...
The Madras High Court has criticised the Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society for not taking appropriate action on a sexual harassment complaint made by one of its woman employees.
Rejecting the society's argument that a writ petition would not be maintainable against the credit society, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy ruled that protecting women employees from sexual harassment at workplace was a public duty and thus the writ petitions would be maintainable.
“A combined reading of the Judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the employee would also reinforce that the matter relating to prevention of sexual harassment at workplace and taking action in respect thereof and grant of protection for women employees at the workplace would be in the realm of public duty and as such I hold that the Writ Petitions are maintainable,” the court observed.
In the process, the court also ended a 25 year old legal battle by the woman employee against the management and directed the management to pay retirement benefits to the employee along with 60% of the back wages.
The court was hearing writ petitions filed by the employee and the management. The employee had sought for implementing the recommendation of National Commission for Women and for considering her suspension period as duty. The management, on the other hand sought for quashing the recommendation of the NCW.
The employee's case was that she was working in the Management from 1994. In 1998, the newly appointed Assistant Secretary transferred her to the establishment section, directly under his control and started behaving indecently with her. In 2001, when the harassment became unbearable, the employee preferred an oral complaint to the Chairman of the Management. The Chairman conducted an enquiry, and reprimanded the Assistant Secretary taking away all his administrative powers. However, 2 months later, all the administrative powers were vested back to him and the employee was made to face a hostile work environment.
The employee further submitted that though enquiry committee was constituted, the employee faced hostility by the committee members who even behaved rudely with her. While so, the employee gave complaint to the National Commission for Women and after enquiry, the committee concluded that the charges of sexual harassment charges were proved. The commission also recommended that appropriate departmental action by taken against the opposite party.
Meanwhile, the employee was also issued with charge memo alleging with she had not performed her duty properly.
The employee argued that the charge memos was a direct fall out of her action in filing a complaint. She argued that the issuance of the charge memo and the conduct would show that it was a pre-planned attempt to victimise the employee. She also pointed out that since she had reached the age of superannuation, the proceedings would have to be treated as lapsed.
The management, on the other hand, questioned the maintainability of the plea alleging that it was only a Co-Operative Society and there was no control by the Government, justifying a writ petition. It was submitted that the functions of the Co-Operative Society was not public in nature, exercisable by State or other authorities and thus, it could not be held to be State.
The management also argued that the charge memo was issued since the employee had indulged in serious offence of creating false document which would amount to criminal offence of forgery. It was argued that when the employee indulges in misconduct to escape punishment, it could not be termed that the charge memo was a fall out of the sexual harassment complaint.
The court, however, rejected the argument on maintainability and noted that since the management had public duty to protect the employees from sexual harassment. The court also criticised the manner in which the management had handled the complaints made by the employee. The court noted that the Chairman of the society did not understand the seriousness of the issue and his conduct exhibited unconscious incompetency of persons being products of misogynistic society.
The court also noted that the charges relating to non-performance of day-to-day work were fished out and levied continuously one after the other only because the employee chosen to pursue her remedies before the NHRC, SHRC, NCW, and SCW.
Thus, noting that the employee was entitled to some kind of compensation, the court directed the management to grant all retirement benefits to the employee with further interest at the rate of 6%. Additionally, the court also ruled that the employee would be entitled to 60% of the back wages.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. G. Anand Gopalan for Mr. A. Jenasenan
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. A. M. Ayyadurai Government Advocate, Ms. D. Nagasaila
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 62
Case Title: Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd v. The Appellate Authority and Others
Case No: Writ Petition Nos.17338 of 2014, 3109 of 2025, 37290 of 2004 and 3071 of 2005