Case: Xxx v. Abraham Mathai Writ Appeal No: 1622 of 2025 Date: August 1, 2025
Citation: 2025 KHC OnLine 849 | 2025 KER 57427 | 2025 KLT OnLine 2566. Court: Kerala High Court (Division Bench)
Key Issues and Court’s Decision
In this significant decision under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”), the Kerala High Court’s Division Bench has held that:
- A written complaint under Section 9 is mandatoryfor an inquiry to be valid. Oral statements by an aggrieved woman, after disowning an earlier anonymous complaint, cannot replace this requirement.
- Allegations without a sexual elementeven if they involve hostility or adverse employment action will not meet the statutory definition in Section 2(n).
- Principles of natural justice are bindingon Internal/Local Committees, including the right of the respondent to cross-examine adverse witnesses. Failure to adhere to these principles renders the proceedings invalid.
- High Court writ jurisdictioncan be invoked despite alternative statutory remedies where gross violations of statute or natural justice occur.
POSH committees cannot be used to litigate — or re-litigate —employment disputes that lack any connection to acts of sexual harassment as defined in Section 2(n).
Outcome: The Division Bench dismissed the complainant’s appeal and affirmed the Single Judge’s quashing of the Local Committee report and District Collector’s directive.
Practical Implications for Employers & POSH Committees
- Section 9 Written Complaint is Indispensable
Before commencing any inquiry, the Internal or Local Committee must ensure that there is a written complaint submitted by the aggrieved woman or, in the exceptional circumstances specifically set out in the Rules (such as incapacity or death), by a duly authorized person with proper written
consent (paras 13, 16). Oral statements or subsequent allegations cannot substitute for this statutory prerequisite.
- Scrutinize the Sexual Nexus of Alleged Acts
Committees should carefully examine whether the allegations, even if couched as workplace misconduct or hostility, have a clear connection to sexual harassment as defined under Section 2(n) of the Act. Only acts or behaviour that are of a sexual nature (directly or by implication) fall within
POSH jurisdiction; general employment disputes, unfair treatment, or dismissal without this nexus do not (paras 9, 12, 17).
- Uphold Comprehensive Procedural Fairness
Strict adherence to the principles of natural justice is mandatory at every stage of the inquiry. This includes:
- Permitting the respondent to know and respond to each allegation,
- Allowing the respondent to cross-examine all material witnesses whose evidence is relied upon (paras 19, 23).
- Conducting proceedings in the absence of a party, or by relying on telephonic or ex-parte evidence without fair opportunity for challenge, may invalidate the process.
- Guard Against Substituting POSH for Broader Workplace Disputes
The POSH framework must not be employed to pursue or adjudicate disputes that, in essence, pertain only to employment contracts, wrongful termination, or other non-sexual aspects of workplace unrest (para 18). Committees should be alert to the risk of jurisdictional overreach and refer parties to appropriate forums if there is no clear sexual harassment element.
- Appreciate the Realities of Judicial Scrutiny
Failure to strictly comply with statutory requirements and natural justice exposes POSH proceedings to early and decisive judicial intervention. The High Court may exercise writ jurisdiction to set aside actions that are ultra vires, procedurally flawed, or violative of basic rights—regardless of the
availability of alternative remedies under the Act (paras 24, 25). Committees should therefore be vigilant in process and substance, recognizing that “shortcuts” or technical lapses may result in their findings being summarily quashed.
The above is for your information and update.
Regards,
Jyotica Bhasin.