Workplace Harassment: Landscape of Technology and Workplace Harassment

The integration of technology into our professional lives has brought about numerous benefits, but it has also opened new avenues for workplace harassment. This article delves into the intricate relationship between technology and harassment, shedding light on the various dimensions of cyberbullying, online harassment, and the role of social media in addressing workplace misconduct.

The Rise of Cyberbullying in the Workplace:

As our workspaces become increasingly digital, so does the potential for cyberbullying. Online platforms and communication tools, once heralded for enhancing collaboration, have become breeding grounds for harassment. Cyberbullying in the workplace can take various forms, including offensive emails, malicious instant messages, or even the dissemination of harmful content through company networks.

The anonymity afforded by digital communication often emboldens perpetrators, making it challenging for victims to identify and report their harassers. Companies are now grappling with the task of adapting their anti- harassment policies to address these digital threats, emphasizing the importance of maintaining respectful and professional communication in all online interactions.

Online Harassment Beyond Office Hours:

The boundaries between personal and professional lives blur in the digital age, and with this blurring comes the risk of online harassment extending beyond the confines of the workplace. Social media platforms, initially designed for personal connections, have become spaces where workplace misconduct can spill over. Employees may experience harassment through inappropriate messages, comments, or even doxing on their personal social media accounts.

Companies are now confronted with the challenge of establishing guidelines for off- duty conduct while respecting employees' rights to privacy. A proactive approach involves educating employees about responsible online behavior and enforcing consequences for those who violate digital boundaries.

The Double-Edged Sword of Social Media:

While social media platforms provide avenues for addressing workplace misconduct, they also present challenges in managing the fallout. Whistle blowing, sharing experiences, and building solidarity are positive aspects of using social media to combat harassment.

S. Malik v. High Court of Delhi (2020) 19 SCC 714:

In the case of S. Malik v. High Court of Delhi, the petitioner, an Additional District Judge at Dwarka, New Delhi, faced allegations of sexual harassment at the workplace by a Junior Judicial Assistant. The complaint was submitted to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi, leading to the formation of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to investigate the allegations.

The petitioner was suspended pending disciplinary proceedings, and the ICC recommended a disciplinary inquiry. The Full Court of the High Court initiated disciplinary proceedings under Rule 8 of the All-India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The inquiry was conducted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

The petitioner challenged the proceedings through a writ petition, raising questions about the jurisdiction of the High Court as a disciplinary authority, the validity of the decision to initiate the inquiry and suspend the petitioner, and the non-supply of the Preliminary Inquiry Report by the ICC.

The Supreme Court noted that the issues raised by the petitioner were still relevant in the ongoing disciplinary proceedings and cautioned against expressing opinions that might prejudice the parties. The Court emphasized that the disciplinary proceedings were yet to reach a final stage.

Key Issues and Supreme Court's Observations:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court as Disciplinary Authority:

The Supreme Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the High Court lacked jurisdiction. It clarified that the power to suspend a judicial officer vested in the High Court, and the Full Court had the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings based on sufficient material. 

2. Validity of the Decision to Initiate Inquiry and Suspension:

The Court upheld the decision of the Full Court dated 13-7-2016 to suspend the petitioner and initiate the inquiry proceedings. It found no error in the actions taken in accordance with the 2013 Act and stressed that the Full Court had the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

3.Non-Supply of Preliminary Inquiry Report:

The petitioner argued that non-supply of the Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 5-11-2016 vitiated the proceedings. The High Court contended that the report did not contain findings against the petitioner but only an opinion that a disciplinary inquiry should be initiated. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court, stating that since the Preliminary Inquiry Report did not contain findings, the petitioner was not entitled to its copy. It concluded that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner by non-supply of the report.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner still had the opportunity to challenge the proceedings, including the actions of the ICC and the Inquiry Report, within the ongoing disciplinary proceedings. The Court left other questions open for the parties to address in the appropriate forum, respecting the ongoing nature of the disciplinary inquiry.

The Concept of Principles of Natural Justice

Principles of Natural Justice refer to fundamental legal principles that ensure fairness in legal proceedings and decision-making processes. These principles are rooted in ensuring that decisions are made in a just and unbiased manner.

Following are the Key Principals:

1. Audi Alteram Partem (Right to Be Heard) Explanation: This principle ensures that both parties involved in a case have the opportunity to present their side before any decision is made. Affected persons must be informed of the allegations against them and given a chance to defend themselves.

2. Nemo Judex in Causa Sua (Rule Against Bias) Explanation: This principle requires the decision- maker to be impartial and free from any personal interest in the outcome of the case.

3. Notice Explanation: Adequate notice of the charges, hearing dates, and the consequences must be given to the person concerned. It allows them to prepare for the hearing.

4. Reasoned Decision Explanation: The authority must provide a clear, reasoned decision. A mere pronouncement without explaining the rationale is insufficient. The decision must mention the key issues, findings, and reasoning.

5. Right to Present Evidence Explanation: The person affected should be allowed to present evidence in their defense. This includes both documentary and oral evidence.

6. Cross-Examination Explanation: The affected party must have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or challenge the evidence presented against them.

7. Decision Based on Evidence Explanation: Decisions must be based on relevant evidence presented during the hearing. Authorities cannot rely on assumptions, extraneous materials, or personal knowledge to make their decision.

8. Rule of Fairness Explanation: Fairness is the overarching principle governing natural justice. Even if all procedural aspects are followed, if the overall process is not fair, the decision can be challenged.

9. Right to Appeal Explanation: A person affected by a decision should have the right to challenge it before a higher or appellate authority. This right ensures that any errors or biases in the initial decision can be rectified.

10. Institutional Bias Explanation: The decision-making body must not have any institutional interest in the outcome of the proceedings. If the institution itself stands to gain from the outcome, it cannot be an impartial decision-maker.

Posh Law :- Sexual Harassment at workplace

The Supreme Court ruled that in cases of workplace sexual harassment, courts should not be influenced by minor discrepancies or overly technical issues. Instead, they should evaluate the overall fairness of the inquiry. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, emphasized that allegations of sexual harassment should be considered within the broader context and not solely on procedural grounds.

Facts of the Case

A female employee filed a sexual harassment complaint against the respondent, initially submitted to the Inspector General (IG) and forwarded to several other authorities. A second complaint with additional allegations was submitted on September 18, 2012. Initial inquiries did not substantiate the allegations, leading the Ministry of Home Affairs to form the Central Complaints Committee per the 2006 Standing Order, which ultimately found the respondent guilty. The respondent argued the allegations were retaliatory due to a rejected transfer application and sought cancellation of the committee’s inquiry from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which refrained from commenting. The High Court later ruled the Central Complaints Committee exceeded its jurisdiction by considering the second complaint and dismissed the findings, calling the case "No Evidence." This led to an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Findings by the Supreme Court

1. Courts Should Not Be Swayed by Discrepancies and Hyper-Technicalities The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's judgment, stating that the Central Complaints Committee did not exceed its jurisdiction by considering the second complaint.

Caselaw in focus

The Court highlighted the importance of addressing workplace sexual harassment seriously and ensuring offenders are held accountable. It emphasized that courts should not be overly concerned with minor discrepancies or technicalities and should consider the broader context of the case. The timeline of the complaints indicated that the second complaint was promptly submitted, supporting the committee’s consideration of it.

2. Role of Courts in Evaluating the Validity of Disciplinary Proceedings The Supreme Court underscored that the primary fact-finding authorities in such cases are the inquiry and disciplinary authorities. Courts, in their judicial review role, should not act as appellate bodies or re-evaluate evidence but should assess the fairness and propriety of the inquiry process. The High Court's interference is warranted only in cases of "no evidence" or decisions that are outrageously unreasonable.

3. Impact of Procedural Violation Against Overall Fairness of Inquiry Addressing procedural violations, the Supreme Court noted that even if the respondent was not explicitly asked about his plea regarding the second complaint, no prejudice was caused since he had filed a written statement of defense and cross-examined witnesses. The Court held that the High Court failed to apply the "test of prejudice" and had improperly set aside the disciplinary authority’s punishment. The procedural violation did not affect the overall fairness of the inquiry.

New Laws In Focus

Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules Amended – For women

To enhance women's safety on public transport, Tamil Nadu amended the state Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

The new provision penalizes actions such as staring, whistling, making obscene gestures, and sexual overtures towards women on buses. Under the amended rules, bus conductors are required to either remove offending male passengers or hand them over to the police if they misbehave with women during the journey.

It further has these additional provisions: Stringent Punishment for Misconduct: Conductors who misbehave with women passengers will face severe legal consequences.

Prohibition on Unwanted Touch: Conductors touching women under the guise of helping them board or alight the bus will be punished.

No Inappropriate Remarks: Conductors are prohibited from making jokes, comments, or sexually colored remarks towards women passengers.

Removal of Misbehaving Passengers: Conductors must remove or hand over to police any male passenger who makes sexual overtures to a woman, after verifying the incident with fellow passengers.

Maintenance of Complaint Book: Conductors must keep a complaint book available for passengers to record any complaints about conductor duties, which must be presented to motor vehicle authorities or the police if necessary.