ASHIMA SANJEEV MINOCHA vs GUJARAT CO-OPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/LPA/391/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 391 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/3285/2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 391 of 2026
==========================================================
ASHIMA SANJEEV MINOCHA
Versus
GUJARAT CO-OPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED &
ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
IG JOSHI(8726) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. KAMAL TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR. SHALIN MEHTA,
SR.ADVOCATE WITH MR. KEYUR GANDHI, ADVOCATE WITH MR. NIRAV
JOSHI, ADVOCATE WITH MR. NISARG DESAI, ADVOCATE WITH MS.
PRAVALIKHA BATTHINI, ADVOCATE FOR GANDHI LAW
ASSOCIATES(12275) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 22/06/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL)
1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment
and order dated 16.04.2026 passed by the learned Single
Judge whereby the writ petition challenging the
recommendations of the Internal Complaint Committee (ICC)
of the Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation
Limited (employer) has been dismissed. While challenging the
recommendation of the ICC under the Sexual Harassment of
Page 1 of 15
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Sat Jun 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 27 16:03:09 IST 2026
C/LPA/391/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal)
Act, 2013, (for short “ the POSH Act, 2013 ”), the petitioner
has also sought directions in the nature of mandamus
directing the Federation to comply with the order dated
19.01.2026 passed by the State Human Rights Commission to
constitute a fresh ICC committee excluding members
subordinate to the respondent No.2 and direct de novo inquiry
into the petitioner’s claim.
2. The other prayers were made in the writ petition by way
of the amendment, of which, prayer 7BB reads as under :-
"BB. Pending hearing and disposal of the petition, this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to
forward the Final Report dated 25.09.2025 to the
Superintendent of Police, Anand for inquiring into the
observations made at Para 22 of the Final Report by
Respondent No. 2, vis-a-vis, forcefully taking the phone from
Petitioner's hand and further consider the case of the
Petitioner for compensation as deemed appropriate by this
Hon'ble Court."
3. At the outset, learned Counsel for the appellant would
submit that the appellant does not want to press the prayer
7B in the writ petition, whereby the directions were sought to
comply with the order dated 19.01.2016 passed by the State
Human Rights Commission.
Page 2 of 15
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Sat Jun 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 27 16:03:09 IST 2026
C/LPA/391/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
4. Coming on the challenge to the judgment and order
dated 16.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge seeking
for setting aside of the Final Report dated 25.09.2025, suffice
it to say that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the
writ petition, has reserved liberty in favour of the petitioner to
take recourse of remedy of appeal before the Appellate
Authority. It was also observed that if the petitioner prefers
an appeal, the same shall be decided in accordance with law
after affording ample opportunity of hearing to all the parties
concerned, without being influenced by the order of the writ
Court.
5. Challenging the judgment impugned, at the outset, it
was sought to be submitted by the learned Counsel for the
appellant that no remedy of appeal is available to the
petitioner, inasmuch as, no appellate forum is available in
terms of Section 18(1) of the POSH Act, 2013.
6. This submission is refuted by Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned
Advocate General with Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the respondents with the categorical
Page 3 of 15
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Sat Jun 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 27 16:03:09 IST 2026
C/LPA/391/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
contention that in view of Rule 11 of the Rules 2013 framed
under Section 29 of the POSH Act, 2013, the petitioner may
prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority notified under
clause (a) of Section 2 of the Industrial Employment (Standing
Orders) Act, 1946 (for short “Industrial Employment Act,
1946”). Inviting attention of the Court to Section 2 (a) read
with the Notification dated 31.12.1979, it is submitted that
Appellate Authority has been notified by the State
Government under Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Industrial
Employment Act, 1946. The copy of the Notification dated
31.12.1979 is placed before us to submit that the petitioner
can approach the Appellate Authority notified therein.
7. On these submissions, in rejoinder, it was vehemently
argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the
Appellate Authority notified under the Notification dated
31.12.1979 cannot be said to be competent authority under
Section 18(1) of the POSH Act, 2013, inasmuch as, there was
a requirement to notify the Appellate Authority by issuing a
Notification subsequent to the implementation of the POSH
Act, 2013 and the rules framed thereunder. To support this
submission, reliance is placed upon a judgment and order
Page 4 of 15
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Sat Jun 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 27 16:03:09 IST 2026
C/LPA/391/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
dated 19.10.2012, reported in the case of Medha Kotwal
Lele & others Vs. Union of India and others reported in
2013 (1) SCC 297 , paragraph No. ‘10’ wherein noted that
no amendments have been brought in the Civil Service
Conduct Rules and Standing Orders made so far and nothing
had been provided by the State of Gujarat before the Hon’ble
Apex Court as to how the complaints committee would be
formed and deal with the complaint.
8. Further reliance is placed upon an interlocutory order
dated 01.05.2025 passed by this Court, taking note of Section
18 and Section 25 (k) of the Act, 2013, to submit that in
absence of prescription of an Appellate Authority under
Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Industrial Employment Act,
1946, it cannot be said that remedy of appeal under Section
18 is available.
9. The contention, thus, is that the observation made by
the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned that the
remedy of appeal is available, is neither here not there and,
moreover, the learned Single Judge has committed an error of
law in dealing with the petitioner’s case on merit while
Page 5 of 15
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Sat Jun 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 27 16:03:09 IST 2026
C/LPA/391/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
relegating the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority
as per Section 18(1) of the POSH Act, 2013.
10. To deal with all these submissions made by the learned
Counsel for the appellant, we are required to note the
provisions of Section 18 and Section 29 of the POSH Act,
2013, as under :
-
“ 18. Appeal .—(1) Any person aggrieved from the
recommendations made under sub-section (2) of section 13 or
under clause (i) or clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 13
or sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 14 or section
17 or non-implementation of such recommendations may
prefer an appeal to the court or tribunal in accordance with
the provisions of the service rules applicable to the said
person or where no such service rules exist then, without
prejudice to provisions contained in any other law for the
time being in force, the person aggrieved may prefer an
appeal in such manner as may be prescribed.
(2) The appeal under sub-section (1) shall be preferred within
a period of ninety days of the recommendations.
29 . Power of appropriate Government to make rules. —
(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the provisions of
this Act.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the
following matters, namely:—
(a) the fees or allowances to be paid to the Members
under sub-section (4) of section 4;
(b) nomination of members under clause (c) of sub-
section (1) of section 7;
Page 6 of 15
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Sat Jun 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 27 16:03:09 IST 2026
C/LPA/391/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
(c) the fees or allowances to be paid to the Chairperson,
and Members under sub-section (4) of
section 7;
(d) the person who may make complaint under sub-
section (2) of section 9;
(e) the manner of inquiry under sub-section (1) of
section 11;
(f) the powers for making an inquiry under clause (c) of
sub-section (2) of section 11;
(g) the relief to be recommended under clause (c) of
sub-section (1) of section 12;
(h) the manner of action to be taken under clause (i) of
sub-section (3) of section 13;
(i) the manner of action to be taken under sub-sections
(1) and (2) of section 14;
(j) the manner of action to be taken under section 17;
(k) the manner of appeal under sub-section (1) of
section 18;
(l) the manner of organising workshops, awareness
programmes for sensitising the employees and
orientation programmes for the members of the
Internal Committee under clause (c) of section 19; and
(m) the form and time for preparation of annual report
by Internal Committee and the Local Committee under
sub-section (1) of section 21.
(3) Every rule made by the Central Government under this
Act shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made, before
each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total
period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session
or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the
expiry of the session immediately following the session or the
successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making
any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the
rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect
only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may
Page 7 of 15
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Sat Jun 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 27 16:03:09 IST 2026
C/LPA/391/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment
shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything
previously done under that rule.
(4) Any rule made under sub-section (4) of section 8 by the
State Government shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is
made, before each House of the State Legislature where it
consists of two Houses, or where such Legislature consists of
one House, before that House.
11. Rule 11 of the Rules framed under Section 29 of the
POSH Act, 2013 reads that :
“Rule 11 of the POSH Rules, 2013 (framed under Section 29
of the Act) governs appeals . It provides the legal recourse
for any person aggrieved by the recommendations of the
Internal or Local Committee. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
The key provisions include:
Appellate Authority: If an organization has specific Service
Rules , the appeal must be filed with the authority designated
under those rules. If no such service rules exist, the appeal
can be filed before the Appellate Authority notified under
the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
Time Limit: An appeal must be preferred within a strict
timeline of 90 days from the date of the recommendation.
Right of the Aggrieved: The right to appeal extends to both
the complainant (e.g., if dissatisfied with the findings,
penalty, or non-implementation) and the respondent .
12. Section 2(a) of the Industrial Employment Act, 1946
further reads as under :-
“Section 2(a) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)
Act, 1946 defines the term "appellate authority". It
designates the specific authority appointed by the
appropriate Government to handle appeals against decisions
Page 8 of 15
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Sat Jun 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 27 16:03:09 IST 2026
C/LPA/391/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
made by Certifying Officers.”
13. A careful reading of Section 18 of the POSH Act, 2013
indicates that the legislature has provided for the remedy of
appeal before the Court or Tribunal, as provided in the
Service Rules applicable to the person concerned, for any
dispute relegating to recommendations of ICC under section
13(2) or clauses (i) or clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section
13, or sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 14 or
section 17 or non-implementation of recommendation of ICC.
Sub-section (1) of Section 18 clearly provides that where no
service rule exists providing for appeal before the Court or
Tribunal, the person aggrieved may prefer an appeal in such
manner, as may be prescribed without prejudice to provisions
contained in any other law for the time being in force.
14. Section 29 confers power upon the Central Government
to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act by
notification in the official gazette. Sub-section (2) of Section
29 provides the specific areas/matters with respect to which
rules may be framed which include “the manner of appeal
under sub-section (1) of Section 18”, in clause (k) of sub-
Page 9 of 15
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Sat Jun 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 27 16:03:09 IST 2026
C/LPA/391/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
section (2) of Section 29.
15. The rules framed under Section 29 of the POSH Act,
2013 are notified in the official gazette dated 09.12.2013 by
the Central Government wherein amongst various procedures
prescribed for making of the complaint and manner of inquiry,
providing for forum for appeal, Rule 11 states that subject to
the provisions of Section 18, any person aggrieved by the
recommendation of ICC, under sub-section (2) of Section 13
may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority notified under
Clause (a) of Section 2 of Industrial Employment Act, 1946.
16. The words used in Rule 11 is “notified” which means
that an Appellate Authority notified under Section 2 (a) by the
appropriate Government by notification in the official gazette
to exercise its power in such area as may be specified in the
notification.
17. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner
is that the Notification dated 31.12.1979 cannot be treated as
Notification of the appropriate authority to provide the forum
of appeal being the Appellate Authority notified under clause
Page 10 of 15
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Sat Jun 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 27 16:03:09 IST 2026
C/LPA/391/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
(a) of Section 2 of Industrial Employment Act, 1946, inasmuch
as, the said notification cannot prescribe an Appellate
Authority under Section 18(1) of the POSH Act, 2013. The
submission is that there is no specific notification of the
appropriate Government/State Government as per section 2
(a) of the Industrial Employment Act, 1946, notifying the
function of the Appellate Authority having authority to
entertain appeal under Section 18 (1) of the POSH Act, 2013.
18. This submission deserves to be rejected outrightly for
the simple reason that Section 18 of the POSH Act, 2013
recognizes the existing Appellate Authority namely the Court
or the Tribunal in the service rules already applicable to the
person aggrieved, within the meaning of the POSH Act, 2013.
Rule 11 of the rules framed under Section 29 of the Act, 2013
begins with the word “subject to the provisions of Section 18” ,
and thus recognizes the Appellate Authority notified under
clause (a) of Section 2 of the Industrial Employment Act, 1946
being the authority to function as an Appellate Authority
under section 18 (1) of the Act, 2013.
19. The Appellate Authority notified under section 2 (a) of
Page 11 of 15
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Sat Jun 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 27 16:03:09 IST 2026
C/LPA/391/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
the Industrial Employment Act, 1946 by the Notification
dated 31.12.1979 shall be treated to be the Appellate
Authority notified under Rule 11 of the POSH Rules, 2013
read with Section 18(1) of the POSH Act, 2013. There is no
need for a separate or specific notification after the
promulgation of the Act to confer powers upon the Appellate
Authority notified under section 2 (a) of the Industrial
Employment Act, 1946 to act as an Appellate Authority under
Section 18 (1) of the POSH Act, 2013.
20. The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the
appellant based on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court
dated 19.12.2012 that the Apex Court has recorded that there
has been no amendment in the Civil Service Conduct Rules
and Standing Orders, are misconceived, inasmuch as, in the
said decision was dealing with the implementation of the
decision in Vishakha Vs. State of Rajasthan which came on
13.08.1997 and has noticed that no statutory law was in place
in spite of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court for
prevention and Redressal of sexual harassment and their due
compliance under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
Until such time, appropriate legislation was not enacted by
Page 12 of 15
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Sat Jun 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 27 16:03:09 IST 2026
C/LPA/391/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
the Parliament, for a period of about 15 years.
21. The observations in paragraph No.‘19’ of the judgment
and order dated 19.10.2012 came in light of the fact that the
Protection of Women against Sexual Harassment at Work
Place Rule, 2010 was pending before the Parliament.
22. The POSH Act, 2013 come into force with effect from
09.12.2013, with Notification published in the official gazette
on 23.04.2013. The question as to who would be the Appellate
Authority has to be dealt with in accordance with the
provisions of the POSH Act itself and the rules framed
thereunder, inasmuch as, sub-section (1) of Section 18
provides that in case where there are no service rules, the
appeal may be preferred in the manner as may be prescribed
under Section 29 of the Act, 2013.
23. With the above, all arguments made by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner no alternative remedy of appeal is
available since the Appellate Authority under section 18 (1)
read with Rule 11 (1) of the rules framed under the POSH Act,
2013 has not been properly notified, are hereby turned down.
Page 13 of 15
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Sat Jun 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 27 16:03:09 IST 2026
C/LPA/391/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
24. The challenge to the judgment and order dated
16.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground
that the petitioner does not have an alternative remedy of
appeal under Section 18 (1) of the Act, 2013 and the writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the
only forum, is hereby turned down.
25. Coming to the other observations made by the learned
Single Judge on the merits of the case of the petitioner, suffice
it to say that looking to the nature of recommendations made
by the ICC in its Final Report dated 25.09.2025, and in view of
available statutory remedy of appeal under Section 18(1),
factual inquiry within the scope of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is not permissible. While modifying the
judgment and order dated 16.04.2026 passed by the learned
Single Judge, setting aside the observations made on the
merits of the case of the petitioner, the present appeal stands
disposed of, with the observations that it would be open for
the original petitioner–Appellant herein to avail the remedy of
appeal under Section 18 (1) read with Rule 11 of the Rules
framed under the POSH Act, 2013.
Page 14 of 15
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Sat Jun 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 27 16:03:09 IST 2026
C/LPA/391/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
26. If such an appeal is filed along with the copy of this
order, the Appellate Authority shall entertain the appeal and
decide the same on merits without being influenced by any of
the observations made in the judgment and order dated
16.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge which was
already been set aside and independent consideration shall be
given to each and every arguments/objections of the appellant
in appeal, in the Final Report dated 25.09.2025 of the ICC.
The connected Civil Application stands disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
BINA SHAH
Page 15 of 15
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Sat Jun 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 27 16:03:09 IST 2026