Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Rs.50,000 fine was imposed on the petitioner for faux sexual harassment case made by her against her collegue in Delhi High Court passed by Single Judge Bench of Justice JR Midha in a petition filed by Anita Suresh
The order passed by Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was challenged by the petitioner, since the excited in February 2015, the petitioner asked the ESI Corporation to withhold the retirement benefits.
In July 2011, a written complaint was made to the Director General of the ESI Corporation alleging the sexual harassment case by the petitioner who was working as Assistant Director with ESI Corporation in Manesar, Gurgaon against the respondent.
As the complaint was investigated by the ICC that was constituted, the allegations could not be established. A benefit of doubt was given and the petitioner and the respondent were relocated postings.
The petitioner disputed that the findings of the ICC was unjustified as she has submitted enough of proof for the allegation she had made, the respondent also pressured her to withdraw her complaint against him. She claimed that transfer of the parties to different places was not a justified penalty.
The Court ordered the Company to submit the original relevant records in the case to decide the case.
It was noted that the petitioner could not recollect the names of the people allegedly present during the event despite being shown the relevant papers relating to the staff members present on that day.
The Committee examined the one who knew the incident, Rashmi Kapoor. She stated that she was not present during the event, but add that the petitioner told her that the respondent had made two inappropriate comments against her, which was not stated by the petitioner in her statement to the Committee.
Many other employees were enquired by the Committee but the allegations did not take a shape.
The respondent had completed some official work in the absence of the petitioner and he added that the sexual harassment complaint was a result of the amimosity she held against him due to the above reason.
After thorough check of the case the Court said that the complaint made by the petitioner appeared to be faux.
"It is not believable that the petitioner would not remember the names of any colleague/staff member. The Committee examined all the persons who were on duty on that day but no persons supported the allegations of the petitioner. The petitioner has not mentioned the alleged comments of respondent No.3 in the complaint on the ground of modesty. The petitioner did not even disclose the alleged comments before the Committee. No reason or justification was been given by the petitioner for not disclosing the same before the Committee. The entire complaint of the petitioner appears to be false and has been filed with some ulterior motive."
It was also taken into record that the petitioner did not have a clean service record, finding no credit in challenge the court dismissed the case with a penalty of Rs.50,000 to be deposited by the petitioner in the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust
The employer was also granted liberty to take appropriate action for filing a false sexual harassment case against the respondent.
86540
103860
630
114
59824