On February 26, 2013, Rajya
Sabha passed The Protection of Women
Against Sexual Harassment at Work Place Bill, 2010 (“Bill”). The Bill was
passed by Lok Sabha in September last year. The long title of the Bill reads
as:
“to provide protection against
sexual harassment of women at workplace and for the prevention and redressal of
complaints of sexual harassment and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto.”
Interestingly, section 14
of the Bill makes a woman or a person, as the case may be, liable for filing of
a false/malicious complaint or false/misleading document. Bill does not define the term “document”, and hence, assistance
can be taken from General Clauses Act, 1897.[1]
Before an action can be
taken under this clause, the internal committee or local committee should
arrive at a conclusion that there has actually been a false/malicious complaint
or false/misleading evidence. Section 4 of the Bill obliges an employer of a
work place to constitute an “internal complaints committee”, which will have a
woman as its presiding officer. In a situation when constitution of an internal
committee a workplace is not feasible (“on account of less than ten persons
being employed at such workplace or where the complaint is against the employer
himself”), a “Local Complaints Committee” shall
be constituted by the District Officer. Local Committee will also have a woman
as its chairperson. Apart from the chairperson or presiding officer, as the
case may be, these committees have substantial number of women as their members.
In fact, presence of women in such committees is necessary for ensuring a fair deal
for complainant.
Some have argued that inclusion
of such a provision in the bill would discourage women from filing complaints. At
the same time, some have argued that inclusion of it will prevent misuse of the
bill. However, any conclusion in this regard can only be made once the act
comes into use.
Bill also makes it
clear that a mere inability to substantiate a complaint or provide adequate
proof need not attract action against the complainant under Section 14. Once
committee gives a verdict against the complainant, an action can be taken in
accordance with the provisions of applicable service rules. In the absence of a
service rule, Bill only provides “in such
manner as may be prescribed”. Section 2(k) defines “prescribed” as “prescribed by rules made under this Act”.
An appeal can be made
against the recommendations of the committee(s) under Section 14 to the court
or tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable
to the said person. In the absence of service rules, the person aggrieved may
prefer an appeal in such manner as may be
prescribed. However, an appeal shall be preferred within a period of thirty days of the
recommendations.
[1] Section 3, General Clauses Act,
1897 (“Document" shall include any matter written, expressed or described
upon any substance by means of letters,
figures or marks, or by more than one of those means which is intended to
be used, or which may be used, for the
purpose or recording that matter.”)
No comments :
Post a Comment