Introduction
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court (“Hon’ble HC”) in its recent judgment titled Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute vs. State Bank of India (WP 1213 OF 2024 ) addressed an important question for employers and Internal Committee (“IC”) members under the POSH Act:
Can an alleged incident during an employee’s commute to the workplace in public transport be treated as a “workplace” incident?
With long commutes and flexible work arrangements becoming common, this issue often comes up in real-life situations. This ruling of the Hon’ble HC provides much-needed clarity on the limits of workplace jurisdiction under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”), in the context of commuting and expanded workplace definitions.
Facts of the Case
The present case arose from an incident during a daily work commute. The employee (“Petitioner”) who worked with State Bank of India (“SBI”), was travelling to his office in a shared vehicle (auto-rickshaw) from the railway station,- can you elaborate - was it like a cab service like Uber or something else . During the ride, another passenger (“Complainant”) alleged that the Petitioner had inappropriately touched her. The situation escalated quickly. The Complainant raised an alarm, a police complaint was filed, and a criminal case was registered against the Petitioner. The Complainant also filed a complaint under the POSH framework through her employer.
This complaint eventually reached the IC of SBI. The IC conducted an inquiry and found the Petitioner guilty of sexual harassment and recommended disciplinary action against him, as per applicable service rules. The Petitioner challenged the finding of the IC before the Hon’ble HC, mainly on the ground that the incident did not occur at a “workplace” and therefore the IC had no jurisdiction/authority to investigate such complaints.
Arguments of the Parties
The Petitioner argued that the POSH Act only applies to incidents that take place at a “workplace”. While section 2 (o) of the POSH Act does include transportation within its definition, it clearly refers to transportation provided by the employer - please mention section no . Since the Petitioner and the Complainant were travelling in a shared vehicle, which was public transport, the incident fell outside the scope of the Act.
On the other hand, the IC argued for a broader interpretation. The IC submitted that since the Petitioner was travelling to work, the commute should be seen as connected to employment and therefore covered under the extended definition of workplace.
Observations of the Hon’ble HC
The Hon’ble HC examined the definition of “workplace” under the POSH Act, and noted that the law does include places visited during the course of employment as well as transportation, but with an important condition: the transportation must be provided by the employer.
In this case, the shared vehicle was simply public transport. It was not arranged, managed, or paid for by the employer. For this reason, the Hon’ble HC held that the incident could not be said to have taken place at a workplace under the POSH Act.
The Hon’ble HC also made an important procedural observation, observing that the IC must first examine whether it has jurisdiction before proceeding with an inquiry. If the incident does not fall within the definition of “workplace”, the IC should not go ahead with the investigation. Since this basic jurisdiction requirement was not met in the present case, the Hon’ble HC held that the IC's entire inquiry was without authority and therefore invalid.
Why This Matters for Employers
This judgment is important because it sets a clear boundary on how far the POSH Act can be applied, when organisations try to take a very inclusive approach. This judgment clarifies that going beyond the scope of the law, even if well-intended, can lead to legal challenges. This judgment also becomes relevant for organisations that provide transport to employees. If transport is arranged by the employer, it may be treated as part of the “workplace”.
Practical Takeaways for Employers
Employers should revisit how “workplace” is understood within their organisations. While employer-provided transport and work-related travel will usually be covered, regular commuting through public transport such as metro, shared auto, local train, etc. may not.
As part of its obligations under the POSH Act, the employer must ensure that IC members receive proper training to assess and address jurisdictional issues at the outset-specifically, to determine whether the complaint falls within the definition of a “workplace”. This helps ensure that the process remains legally sound and avoids jurisdictional challenge.
Finally, employers should ensure that they have alternative mechanisms to deal with situations that fall outside the scope of POSH Act. Just because a complaint does not meet the legal definition of “workplace” does not mean the issue disappears or should be ignored. In many cases, such incidents can still affect workplace relationships, employee morale, or the overall culture of the organisation.
To address this, employers should rely on well-drafted codes of conduct, employee behaviour policies, and disciplinary frameworks that can be applied in a broader set of situations. These policies can help organisations take appropriate action where conduct, even outside strict POSH coverage. Having such parallel mechanisms ensures that organisations respond consistently and responsibly, without trying to stretch the POSH Act beyond its intended limits.
Authors:
Gyanendra Kumar Mishra, Partner
Maruti Nandan, Associate
Disclaimer:
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.