Delhi HC Imposes Rs. 50,000 Cost On Woman For False Sexual Harassment Plea [Read Judgment]

The petitioner, an Assistant Director with ESI Corporation in Manesar, Gurgaon in July, 2011 made a written complaint to the Director-General of ESI Corporation alleging sexual harassment by one S.H. Verma, respondent No.3 in the instant case. In her complaint she had mentioned about two incidents:

• "Yesterday when I was seated with my colleagues on the 1st floor of the building, Sh. Verma came and commented indicating sexual advances. I cannot for the reasons of modesty bring on papers the filthy language he uses for me."
• "Yesterday in the presence of my staff and other members he asked me to come alone to check the shortcomings of the male toilet when nobody is there and I will follow you soon."

In pursuance of her complaint, an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was constituted which examined the petitioner, the alleged perpetrator and eight other eyewitnesses. In its report the ICC observed that the exact content of the alleged communication could not be established. Giving benefit of doubt to the alleged perpetrator, it recommended the relocation of both the petitioner and the alleged perpetrator from their postings.

In the instant case, the counsel for the petitioner urged that the findings of the ICC were unjustified and erroneous.

The Court had earlier directed the employer, ESI Corporation to produce the original relevant records. Examining the same the Court found that though the petitioner had alleged in her letter that during the perpetration of the impugned acts she was in the presence of her colleagues, she could not recollect the names of any one of them even after she was shown the relevant papers related to the staff members who were present on that day. Further, none of the eight witnesses examined supported her version. The petitioner did not mention the exact comments made by the alleged perpetrator either in the complaint or before the committee without providing a reason or justification. Further, there were a number of instances which pointed at the fact that the petitioner did not have a clean service record.

Considering all of these the High Court observed that there was no merit in the writ petition and dismissed the same. The Court also ordered the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000 with the Delhi Advocates Welfare Trust within four weeks.

Click here to download the judgment