Bombay High Court Rules Shared Autorickshaw Not a 'Workplace' Under POSH Act Unless Employer-Provided
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has clarified that a shared autorickshaw used by an employee for commuting to work does not constitute a 'workplace' under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), unless the transport is provided by the employer.
The judgment, delivered on June 16, set aside the findings of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) that had held a State Bank of India (SBI) employee guilty of sexual harassment based on an incident that occurred during such travel. The case arose when the petitioner, an SBI employee, was travelling in a shared autorickshaw with the respondent.
The court observed that while the petitioner was travelling to his office, the transportation in question had not been provided by either his employer or the respondent's employer. Therefore, such transportation would not fall within the definition of a 'workplace' as defined by Section 2(o)(v) of the POSH Act. The court emphasised that it had not yet examined the merits of the harassment allegations and left that aspect open for appropriate legal proceedings.
The ruling prompts a closer look at what constitutes a 'workplace' under the POSH Act. According to Section 2(o), the term includes any department, organisation, undertaking, establishment, enterprise, institution, office, branch or unit that is established, owned, controlled or wholly or substantially financed by funds from the government, local authority, government company, corporation or cooperative society.
It also covers private sector organisations or ventures carrying out commercial, professional, vocational, educational, entertainment, industrial, health services or financial activities, including production, supply, sale, distribution or service. Hospitals, nursing homes, sports institutes, stadiums, sports complexes, and venues used for training or competitions are also included.
Additionally, the definition extends to any place visited by the employee arising out of or during the course of employment, including transportation provided by the employer for such a journey, and a dwelling place or house, especially for domestic workers. The Act also covers the 'unorganised sector'—enterprises owned by individuals or self-employed workers with fewer than ten workers.
While the Act does not explicitly mention virtual workspaces, courts have interpreted the definition broadly to include digital and remote work environments.
The POSH Act draws from the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), which laid down guidelines to enforce fundamental rights of gender equality and life and liberty under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution. While the Vishaka guidelines focused on traditional office settings, the POSH Act introduced the concept of an 'extended workplace' to cover situations beyond the primary place of employment.
The Bombay High Court's ruling underscores the importance of employer-provided transport in determining whether a location falls under the Act's ambit. Legal experts note that the decision clarifies the scope of 'workplace' and may influence future cases involving commuting incidents.
