The provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, are applicable to girl students of schools, the Calcutta High Court has recently observed.
A bench comprising, Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta, placed reliance on the definition of ‘aggrieved woman’ as provided under Section 2 (a) of the 2013 Act and said that “the provisions of the Act squarely apply to the students of the school,” hearing a plea by a teacher of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Ravangla, South Sikkim.
Around 67 students of the school had complained of sexual harassment against the teacher.
The respondent school had contended that the Act will not be applicable to the aggrieved female students.
Placing reliance on the Section 2 (a) of the 2013 Act which prescribes the definition of an “aggrieved woman,” the court rejected the contention of the school and opined that the provisions of the Act will be applicable to girl students of schools.
“As per Section 2 (a) an aggrieved woman means in relation to a workplace, a woman, of any age whether employed or not, who alleges to have been subjected to any act of sexual harassment by the respondent. That being so, the provisions of the Act squarely apply to the students of the school,” the court said during the hearing.
The plea was heard by the court on December 7, 2021 and the judgment was given on January 24, 2022.
The court, however, quashed the school’s suspension order on the petitioner teacher and the enquiry proceedings initiated by the institution to probe the allegations against him, saying that the inquiry committee constituted by the school did not conform with the requirements of Section 4 of the said Act.
The school should have constituted an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) as per the provisions laid down in the Act and that committee should have been deemed to be the inquiring authority appointed by the school.
It was further held by the court that the committee formed by the respondent school to conduct a summary trial cannot be termed as an ICC as per the provisions of the Act.
The panel constituted by the school did not have an external independent member as stipulated by the Act.
The court directed the school to allow the petitioner to join his duties within one month and to pay all his dues within two months of joining duty.
Also read:
Add comment