Ms. Sunita vs Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre Aiims & Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4562/2023 and CM APPL. 17376/2023
Date of Decision : 29.04.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:

MS. SUNITA .....Petitioner
Through: Appearance not given.

versus

JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN APEX TRAUMA CENTRE AIIMS &
ANR.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr Mayank Yadav and Mr Jitender
Verma Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Arun Mehta and Mr.Vikram Jeet
Singh Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)


1. The petitioner, Ms. Sunita, was engaged by Respondent No.2, M/s Swift
Securitas Pvt. Ltd., a manpower service provider agency. She was deployed by
Respondent No.2 with Respondent No.1, Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma
Centre, AIIMS. Another co-employee of Respondent No.2, Satpal, was also
deployed with Respondent No.1.
2. The petitioner alleges that on 27.05.2021 at approximately 1:45 PM, she
was subjected to assault and sexual harassment by Satpal at Safdarjung Bus
Stand. In her own complaint dated 27.05.2021, the petitioner stated that she was
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:13.05.2026
11:07:32

going to the Trauma Centre for taking medicines for leg pain. Her duty hours
with Respondent No.2 commenced at 2:00 PM, and she was not on duty at the
time of the alleged incident. The petitioner filed a police complaint with the
SHO, P.S. Sarojini Nagar. Since no FIR was registered, the petitioner filed a
private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Court of CMM, Saket
Court, New Delhi.
3. Respondent No.1, AIIMS, vide its letter dated 02.06.2021, noted that the
matter involved a fight between two workers of an outsourced vendor which
occurred on the roadside and was a personal matter, and directed the removal of
both offenders from AIIMS. Consequently, Respondent No.2 terminated the
services of both the petitioner and Satpal. The petitioner instituted a civil suit
challenging her termination, which was withdrawn on 14.10.2022 with liberty
to file afresh.

4. The petitioner, thereafter, issued a legal notice dated 05.12.2022
demanding constitution of an Internal Complaint Committee under the Sexual
Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal)Act, 2013 (POSH Act). Respondent No.2, in its reply dated
12.12.2022, stated that the provisions of the POSH Act are not attracted to the
petitioner's complaint.
5. The instant petition seeks, inter alia , a writ of mandamus directing
Respondent No.1 to constitute an Internal Complaint Committee under the
POSH Act to enquire into the petitioner's complaint dated 27.05.2021. Learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner confirms the factum of filing a
complaint before the competent Court, however, he expresses ignorance about
the current status of the said complaint.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:13.05.2026
11:07:32

1

6. The Supreme Court in Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India has held that
the definition of 'workplace' under Section 2(o) of the POSH Act includes any
place visited by an employee arising out of or during the course of employment.
In the present case, the alleged incident did not occur at the workplace of the
petitioner. The petitioner was not on duty at the time of the incident, as her duty
hours commenced at 2:00 PM whereas the incident occurred at approximately
1:45 PM. The petitioner was on a personal errand, seeking medical treatment for
leg pain, as admitted in her own complaint dated 27.05.2021. She was not
visiting the bus stand arising out of or during the course of her employment with
the respondents.
7. This Court in Saurabh Kumar Mallick v. Comptroller and Auditor
2
General of India has held that a place may be considered a workplace if (i)
there is proximity to the formal workplace, (ii) control exercised by the
employer, and (iii) whether a place is an extension of the workplace. Applying
the test, the Safdarjung Bus Stand has no proximity to the AIIMS campus, the
respondents exercise no control over a public bus stand, and it is not an
extension of any workplace of the respondents.
3
8. The Supreme Court in Yogamaya M.G. v. State of Kerala has held that a
place without an employer-employee relationship cannot be treated as a
workplace under the POSH Act. The Court observed that extending the Act to
such situations would open a Pandora's box and would become a tool for
blackmail and misuse.
9. Also, Respondent No.1, AIIMS, in its letter dated 02.06.2021,
characterized the incident as a roadside scuffle and a personal matter and
directed that the matter be settled outside the hospital. The police, in its action

1
2025 INSC 1415
2
151 (2008) DLT 261
3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2011
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:13.05.2026
11:07:32

taken report, concluded that the petitioner's complaint was a counter blast due to
change of her duties. The petitioner herself chose to pursue criminal remedies
under Sections 323/354/354B/506 IPC by filing a private complaint under
Section 200 Cr.P.C., rather than invoking the POSH Act at that stage.
Therefore, on the specific facts of this case, the place where the incident
occurred cannot be considered a 'workplace' of the petitioner under Section 2(o)
of the POSH Act.
10. Under these circumstances, and on the specific facts of this case there
does not arise any question for direction to Respondent No.1 to send the
petitioner's complaint to an Internal Complaint Committee under the POSH Act.
There is no co-relation between the incident and the premises of Respondent
No.1.
11. In view of the aforesaid and finding no justification in the prayer made
herein, the instant petition stands dismissed. Pending application also stands
disposed of.
12. Liberty is, however, granted to the petitioner to raise all the issues in the
pending complaint before the appropriate authority and to take appropriate
recourse in accordance with law.


(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
APRIL 29, 2026
Nc
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:13.05.2026
11:07:32