Mumbai: A woman legal consultant has moved Bombay high court against the management of a large real estate major with regard to a sexual harassment case in the company.
According to her, she received a written complaint on November 20, 2023 from a female employee of the company that she was sexually harassed by a senior official Vijay Dhekale during a Deepawali party last year.
Following this the internal complaints committee (ICC) of the company headed by the petitioner held an inquiry as per the Protection of Woman from Sexual harassment (POSH) Act. However, the petitioner alleged that there was constant interference of the management in the proceedings of the ICC. She alleged that her signature was forged and action recommended by the ICC against the accused was diluted.
The woman has moved the High Court seeking action against the people concerned and a police investigation. The prosecution has however sought time to respond to the plea.
The petitioner claimed that due to interference from the management, the inquiry could not be completed in time. Nevertheless, ICC concluded the inquiry, and prepared final report on December 12, 2023, wherein it was held that victim had proved her allegation against Dhekale.
The petitioner claimed that, before the committee could discuss the recommendation, the owners of the company got involved and held direct discussions with ICC members and prepared a draft recommendation on their own.
The petitioner's lawyer, Rizwan Merchant and Bhavesh Thakur contended before the division bench of Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj K Chavan that, "the petitioner, as a Presiding Officer, along with other committee members had proposed certain punishments to the delinquent on February 7, 2024. The draft recommendations were sent to all the members of the ICC from the official email of one of the committee members and on the very same day, without the petitioner’s consent/knowledge." It was further stated that the petitioner hence resigned on February 8, 2024.
It was further submitted to the court that, on February 13, 2024, when the petitioner received an email that the petitioner’s digital signature was picked up and affixed on the diluted recommendation dated February 7 2024, contrary to what was proposed when she was the Presiding Officer. It was further submitted that the other committee members have accepted the said fact that the petitioner’s digital signature was picked-up and affixed on the diluted recommendation dated February 7, 2024.
Thus, they contended that it was incumbent on the police to register an FIR against the persons concerned and not file a closure report, as has been done, in this case. After hearing the arguments, the prosecution had sought time to submit reply and seek instructions. The petition is now kept for hearing by next week.
