GAUHATI HIGH COURT: INCIDENT ARISING OUT OF AND DURING EMPLOYMENT HELD TO CONSTITUTE A “WORKPLACE”

The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, in Biplab Kumar Das v. IDBI Bank Ltd. & Ors., examined the issue of territorial jurisdiction in disciplinary proceedings arising from allegations of sexual harassment at the workplace and reiterated that a writ petition under Article 226[1] is maintainable only where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

The case arose from allegations of sexual harassment made against the appellant during a training programme at Kolkata, attended by both the appellant and the complainant pursuant to their employment with the respondent bank. During the training period, they were accommodated in a visiting officers’ flat at Kolkata, where the alleged incident occurred. A complaint was lodged at Kolkata, following which the matter was referred to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), which conducted its inquiry at Kolkata and submitted its report there. A show cause notice proposing a major penalty was subsequently issued from Kolkata, although the appellant was posted in Bihar at the relevant time.

[1] Article 226, The Constitution of India, pp. 112-114: “(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. (2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. (3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without— (a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and (b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated. (4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32.”