Karnataka High Court: While considering the instant petition challenging a final report of internal committee against Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace and a consequent transfer order, the Bench of S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, J.*, explained that despite the absence of specific provision in POSH Act for granting of interim order, the Appellate Authority would have the power to consider the interim application.
The petitioner was appointed as Finance Officer on contract basis; however, during his employment, a sexual harassment complaint was lodged against him. It was submitted that that petitioner filed his detailed reply to the complaint and the Internal Complaints Committee made out its final report and his employer passed an order of transfer.
The petitioner submitted that he filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, an application for stay was filed and till date, no orders have been passed, and the Authority has merely issued notice in the appeal without considering granting an interim order of the impugned proceedings which has caused irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner.
Counsels for the petitioner argued that in terms Section of (POSH Act) and under Rule 11 of (POSH Rules), the appellate authority has no power to consider the application for stay. Therefore, once the appeal is filed, unless the application for stay is considered by the Appellate Authority, cases of genuine grievance would remain unaddressed till the appeal is decided, which may take time with no relief in the interregnum.
Perusing the petitioner’s grievance, the Court took note of Section of and Rule 11 of POSH Rules and pointed out that the provisions indeed do not contain any stipulation regarding granting of interim relief.
However, the Court explained that POSH Act does not expressly prohibit the Appellate Authority to pass an interim order and once the appellate authority has the power to set aside impugned proceedings, it can be construed that the appellate authority also has implied power to consider passing of interim order of stay as well.
The Court further explained that it cannot exercise its inherent power in conflict with what has been specifically provided under the Statute. However, “When there is no such bar in regard to grant of interim relief under the statute, such power to grant interim relief could be considered”.
The Court further stated that every Court must be deemed to possess by necessary intendment all such powers as are necessary to make its orders effective. This principle is embodied in the maxim “ubi aliquid conceditur, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest“.
Henceforth, the Court held that the Appellate Authority has the power to consider the application of the petitioner for stay, as may be appropriate upon the merits of the matter. The Court further directed the Appellate Authority that consideration of the interim relief must be made within an outer limit of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the instant order.
[Nagaraj GK v. Additional Labour Commissioner, WRIT PETITION NO. 28361 OF 2024, decided on 5-11-2024]
*Order by Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Petitioner: SRI. NAGARAJA HEGDE., ADVOCATE
Respondents: MS. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA for R1
The post appeared first on .