Bombay High Court: Shared Auto Not a ‘Workplace’ Under PoSH Act Unless Employer-Provided

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a shared auto-rickshaw used by an employee to commute to work does not qualify as 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 division bench of Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla and Justice Suman Shyam delivered the judgment on June 22, setting 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 involved an SBI employee who was travelling to his office in a shared auto-rickshaw on March 24, 2023. Another passenger, referred to as Respondent 3, alleged that the petitioner intentionally made physical contact. The petitioner claimed any contact was due to overcrowding. The respondent used pepper spray and called the police, leading to an FIR under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code. She also filed a complaint under the PoSH Act with the bank's ICC.

The ICC found the petitioner guilty and recommended disciplinary action. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court, which earlier directed that no final order be passed in the appeal without its permission.

The court examined whether the incident occurred at a 'workplace' under Section 2(o) of the PoSH Act. It noted that the petitioner was travelling to his office, but the transport was not provided by his employer or by the respondent's employer. The court held that such transportation does not fall under the definition of 'workplace' as per Section 2(o)(v) of the Act, which covers transport provided by the employer.

The bench concluded that the alleged incident did not occur at a 'workplace', and therefore the ICC lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The court declared the ICC's order unsustainable and set it aside.

The court clarified that it had not determined whether the petitioner sexually harassed the respondent, leaving that question open for adjudication in appropriate proceedings.

The judgment was delivered in the case of Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute v. SBI (Writ Petition No. 1213 of 2024) on June 16, 2026.