Public transport not provided by employer does not constitute “workplace” under the POSH Act.

The Petitioner, an employee of the State Bank of India for 14 years, was commuting to his workplace at Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC) from Kurla Railway Station via a shared public autorickshaw

Respondent No. 3 (the complainant) was a co-passenger in the same vehicle. An altercation occurred during the commute, wherein Respondent No. 3 alleged that the Petitioner inappropriately touched her

Following a police complaint, Respondent No. 3 also filed a complaint with the Internal Committee (IC) of her own employer, which was subsequently forwarded to the Petitioner’s employer (Respondent No. 2)

On August 29, 2023, Respondent No. 2’s IC found the Petitioner guilty of sexual harassment under the POSH Act and recommended disciplinary action

The Petitioner challenged this order, primarily on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction

1. Whether a shared public autorickshaw, not provided by the employer, falls within the definition of "workplace" under Section 2(o) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013

2. Whether the Internal Committee has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide a complaint regarding an incident that occurred outside the "workplace"

The court primarily applied Section 2(o) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, which defines "workplace"

Specifically, Section 2(o)(v) includes "any place visited by the employee arising out of or during the course of employment including transportation provided by the employer for undertaking such journey"

The court also interpreted Section 9 (complaint of sexual harassment) and Section 11 (inquiry into complaint), stating that the IC’s jurisdiction is contingent upon the incident occurring at a "workplace"

The Court analyzed the statutory definition of "workplace" under Section 2(o)(v) and observed that for a transit space to qualify as a workplace, the transportation must be provided by the employer

In the present case, the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 were using a shared public autorickshaw—a mode of public transport not arranged or funded by either of their employers. Consequently, the site of the alleged incident did not meet the legal criteria of a "workplace"

The Court rejected the Respondents’ argument that the IC could entertain any complaint first and decide the location's status later; the Court held that the IC must first determine the jurisdictional fact of whether the incident occurred at a "workplace" before proceeding with an inquiry

Since the jurisdictional requirement was not met, the IC's findings were deemed ultra vires

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated August 29, 2023, for lack of jurisdiction

The Court clarified that it did not adjudicate upon the merits of the harassment allegations and left the parties free to pursue other appropriate legal remedies. The Writ Petition was allowed with no order as to costs