What "In Such Manner as May Be Prescribed" Actually Means One of the most litigated phrases within the POSH Act, 2013 is found in Section 13(3)(i), which directs employers to act upon the recommendations of the IC "in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the respondent." For years, defense counsels have aggressively interpreted this phrase as a statutory mandate to trigger a completely fresh, separate disciplinary inquiry from scratch under standard corporate service codes. The Bombay High Court’s analysis in the Arun A. Iyer judgment has provided a definitive clarification, cutting through this deliberate misinterpretation. The Division Bench clarified that the reference to service rules in Section 13(3)(i) refers strictly to the mechanism and scale of executing the penalty, not to the rebuilding of the inquiry process itself. In other words, the service rules are consulted to determine what constitutes a "major penalty" vers...
Not every case of sexual harassment at the workplace needs to culminate in a formal inquiry. The POSH Act , 2013 recognizes that in some situations, the aggrieved woman may prefer a less adversarial resolution. This is where conciliation plays a role offering an opportunity to resolve the complaint amicably, provided certain safeguards are respected. For the Internal Committee (IC), conciliation is a delicate process that requires sensitivity, neutrality, and strict adherence to law. 1. When Conciliation Can Be Considered Conciliation is an option available only at the request of the complainant. The IC cannot suggest or impose conciliation on its own. The request must be made before the start of the formal inquiry process. This ensures that the complainant’s autonomy and comfort remain at the center of decision-making. 2. Prohibited Basis of Conciliation The law expressly forbids monetary settlement as the foundation of conciliation. This is a critical safeguard against misuse and exp...