The Madras High Court recently emphasized that any action or words making a woman uncomfortable or unwelcome at her workplace constitutes sexual harassment under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (PoSH) Act, regardless of the perpetrator's intent.

This landmark observation was made by Justice RN Manjula in an order passed on January 22.

Invoking the'reasonable woman standard,' Justice Manjula highlighted that the PoSH Act prioritizes how a victim perceives behavior over the intentions behind it. "If an action is felt as unwelcome and inappropriate by a woman, it falls under the definition of sexual harassment," the court held.

To support this view, the judge referenced the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Joseph Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. (523 U.S. 75, 1998), which established that the standard for assessing reasonableness in such cases is that of a reasonable woman, not a reasonable man.

The Court also emphasized that workplace interactions should be guided by decency, assessed through the lens of how one's behavior affects others, particularly women. "Decency is not determined by what the accused perceives but by how the recipient of the behavior feels," the Court observed.

The Court was hearing an appeal by HCL Technologies against a labor court order overturning the findings of its Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). The ICC had found a senior employee guilty of sexual harassment based on complaints by three female employees.

The complainants alleged that the senior employee would frequently stand behind them while they worked, touch their shoulders, insist on handshakes, and demand specific body measurements for distributing overcoats, even after they had communicated their sizes.

The accused argued that his actions were part of his supervisory duties and lacked any intent to harass. He also contended that the ICC's refusal to provide CCTV footage denied him a fair defense, a point the labor court accepted while setting aside the ICC’s findings.

The High Court, however, found the labor court’s reasoning flawed. Justice Manjula noted that the accused’s own admissions supported the complainants' accounts and that CCTV footage was irrelevant to understanding how the complainants felt.

"It has already been established that the respondent's actions caused embarrassment and discomfort to the complainants. The ICC’s inquiry adhered to the PoSH Act and principles of natural justice, and the labor court should not have delved into hyper-technicalities," the Court said.

The High Court reinstated the ICC's findings, thereby upholding HCL's decision to dismiss the accused employee.

Senior Advocate Srinath Sridevan and advocate Anita Suresh represented HCL Technologies, while Senior Counsel KM Ramesh and advocate V Subramani appeared for the accused employee.