Oral complaints cannot substitute written complaints under PoSH Act: Kerala High Court

The court considered the petition submitted by the doctor of medicine (applicant), against whom an investigation report was prepared.

For reference: earlier, the minister dismissed a female employee from the service due to improper performance of work. The former employee appealed her dismissal in the labor court, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit to prevent her from entering the office premises.

Later, an anonymous complaint was sent to the District Collector with various allegations against the petitioner. This complaint was referred to the Local Level Committee which conducted an inquiry under the PoSH Act.

During this investigation, the committee also spoke with a former employee who alleged harassment at work due to personal animosity. She also allegedly said that the MD was spreading obscene rumors against him on her behalf.

However, she denied that she was asked for any sexual favors or solicited by him. In addition, the court noted that she had also raised doubts before the committee as to whether the case could be called a case of sexual harassment.

Ultimately, the committee concluded that MD (claimant) had created a hostile work environment and recommended that he be asked to apologize to the former employee in addition to compensating her.

This was challenged by the applicant in the High Court, where he also challenged Rule 7 (6) of the PoSH Rules, which prohibited the presence of counsel during the inquiry.