Creating 'Hostile Environment' For Employee At Work Does Not Fall Under Scope of PoSH Act: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has ruled that allegations of creating a hostile work environment, without any element of sexual conduct or advances, do not amount to “sexual harassment” under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act).
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar made the observation while dismissing a writ appeal challenging a single judge's decision that had quashed the report of a Local Level Committee constituted under PoSH Act and a compliance directive from the Thiruvananthapuram District Collector.
“Her allegation was that the 1st respondent created a hostile work environment, behaved in an unfair and cruel manner, and ultimately denied her salary and terminated her service but without any unwelcome acts or behaviour which may tantamount to sexual harassment as defined under Section 2(n) of the Act. These acts, evidently, are connected to a labour dispute rather than constituting sexual harassment as defined under the PoSH Act.” the bench observed.
The case arose when the appellant was terminated from Amstor Information Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. The termination was challenged in the Labour Court. The first respondent who is the Managing Director of the Company filed a suit seeking to interdict the appellant from trespassing into the office of the Company. In the meantime a complaint was forwarded to the District Collector raising allegations against the first respondent. The same was forwarded by District Collector to a Local-level Committee under PoSH Act.
The Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Local Level Committee, based on the evidence and the complaint was convinced that sexually coloured remarks were made to make the workplace hostile and the same would amount to sexual harassment in terms of the provisions of the PoSH Act.
The Court noted that when an allegation of sexual harassment is made under the Act, the act should have something to do with sexual advance either directly or by implication. The Court examined the Section 3 of the Act and observed that “the provision clarified that sexual harassment includes not only direct advances but also conduct that leverages power or workplace dynamics to control, influence, or intimidate a woman, provided such conduct occurs in relation to or is connected with any act or behaviour of sexual harassment.”
The appellant alleged that respondent spread rumours within the office intended to discredit her in the workplace. She also alleged that the respondent behaved in rash and abusive manner, using offensive and sexist language and shouted at her.
The Bench noted that the complainant had herself admitted before the committee that there was no physical contact, demand for sexual favours, or sexually coloured remarks. While she alleged an “unfair and hostile environment,” the Court held that such conduct, though objectionable, fell within the realm of employment disputes and not the statutory definition of sexual harassment under Section 2(n) of the PoSH Act.
The Court thus dismissed the appeal and set aside the report by the Local Level Committee and the Consequential communication issued by the Collector.
Case Title: X v Abraham Mathai and Ors.
Case No: WA 1622/ 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 541
Counsel for Appellant: R Anilkumar
Counsel for Respondent: P Fazil, M Jayakrishnan, Saju Thaliath, Jayasree Manoj, Jithin Paul Varghese, C Prathibha, Fadil Fazil, Aswathy Jayachandran, Akshaya Thomas, K Jaju Babu (Sr.)