Unwelcome Behaviour At Workplace Constitutes Sexual Harassment: Madras HC
Decency is not determined by what an individual perceives as appropriate but by how their actions impact the other gender, court said

The Madras High Court recently emphasized that any uninvited activity that is inappropriate and has a negative impact on women would surely constitute as “sexual harassment” under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act of 2013 (the PoSH Act).
The court stressed that the term stresses the act itself over the reason behind it, stating that employees must engage with one another in a decency-based manner. It was highlighted that if such conduct are reported as a criminal offence, the prosecution may be required to prove the intention as well.
The bench of Justice R.N. Manjula emphasized that decency is decided not by what a person considers suitable, but by how their acts affect the other gender.
The court overturned a Principal Labour Court order that had rejected the conclusions of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) on charges of workplace sexual harassment. The High Court upheld the ICC’s recommendations and stressed the significance of conducting a fair yet context-sensitive probe in such circumstances.
The case involved a 2017 complaint against N. Parsarathy, a Service Delivery Manager at HCL Technologies, alleging repeated cases of sexual harassment. The ICC, established under the PoSH Act, convicted Parsarathy guilty of misconduct. The accusations alleged that Parsarathy made unwanted physical contact, asked inappropriate personal questions, and created a hostile work environment for female employees.
The ICC proposed a number of disciplinary penalties, including removing Parsarathy’s supervisory responsibilities, confining his function to India, and denying him any increments or perks for two years. The proposals were intended to guarantee the safety and dignity of the company’s female employees.
However, Parsarathy filed an appeal with the Labour Court, arguing that the ICC violated due process and procedures. He contended that the non-disclosure of CCTV evidence and the lack of cross-examination chances made the probe unfair. In December 2019, the Labour Court accepted his plea and overturned the ICC’s conclusions on the basis of natural justice principles.
HCL Technologies challenged this ruling in the High Court, claiming that the ICC acted within its statutory powers and conducted a fair investigation. The High Court evaluated the ICC’s processes and determined them to be in accordance with the PoSH Act. It highlighted that the ICC struck a balance between the respondent’s right to a fair hearing and the complainants’ right to a non-threatening environment during the investigation.
The High Court criticized the Labour Court’s approach, claiming that it failed to understand the complexities of workplace harassment situations. It noted that in such circumstances, the victim’s impression is more important than the accused’s purpose. The decision also emphasized that strict procedural requirements should not jeopardize complainants’ privacy and dignity, particularly in delicate circumstances of sexual harassment.
The Court further stressed that the ICC’s role is similar to that of a quasi-judicial institution, and that its findings should only be challenged in circumstances of procedural failures or apparent injustice. It underlined that minor anomalies or the absence of CCTV footage should not overshadow the significant facts and testimony acquired during the investigation.
Accordingly, court allowed the appeal and quashed the Labour Court’s order. For further insights into the evolving workplace paradigm, visit
- Shitij Taneja elevated as Managing Director of Times Square Headquartered Vertex Global Services - February 7, 2025
- Phenom Acquires EDGE, Strengthening Its AI-Powered Resource Planning Solutions for the Global Capability Center Market - February 7, 2025
- Employees Can Be Transferred On Administrative Exigency But Not In Violation Of Statue Or Operative Guidelines: Karnataka High Court - February 6, 2025