The petitioner in the instant case has challenged the order of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). The petitioner was working as an Assistant Director with ESI Corporation in Manesar, Gurgaon in July, 2011. On 08th July, 2011, the petitioner made a written complaint to the Director General of ESI Corporation alleging sexual harassment by respondent No.3. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 misbehaved and made attempts of sexual advances.
Respondent No.1 constituted an Internal Complaints Committee to examine the complaint of the petitioner. Respondent No.3 appeared before the Committee and denied all the allegations made by the petitioner. According to respondent No.3, the petitioner made the complaint because of the grudge against him due to certain official work disposed by him in her absence.
The Committee examined the petitioner as well as respondent No.3. The Committee examined eight witnesses. The Committee submitted its report in January, 2012, in which it observed that the exact content of communication of the incident dated 07th July, 2011 could not be established. The Committee gave benefit of doubt to respondent No.3 and recommended relocating both the petitioner and respondent No.3 from their present posting.
Learned counsel for the petitioner urged at the time of the hearing that the findings of the Committee are erroneous and unjustified. It was also mentioned that Respondent No.3 pressurized the petitioner to withdraw her complaint.
Vide order dated 28th March, 2019, this Court directed the employer, ESI Corporation to produce the original relevant records which were produced on 09th April, 2019 and have been examined by this Court. Upon examination she could not remember the names of the collegueas in whose presence the incident had take place. The petitioner also failed to mention the exact comments both before the court and the inquiry committee. Further, a number of instances were stated providing that the petitioner did not have a clean service record. Considering all this the HC held that the writ petition has no merit and dismissed the case. The petitioner was asked to deposit Rs.50,000/- with the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust within four weeks.