Bombay High Court says shared car not ‘workplace’ under PoSH Act, sets aside ICC order

The Bombay High Court noted that the ICC could not file a complaint unless the alleged harassment occurred in a “workplace”. File | Photo credit: The Hindu

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a shared autorickshaw used by an employee to commute to work does not constitute a “workplace” under the Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Remediation) Act, 2013 (PoSH) unless the transport is provided by the employer.

In its order dated June 22, the High Court set aside the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) which had accused a State Bank of India (SBI) employee of sexual harassment based on an incident that occurred during such a trip.

The petitioner, an employee of SBI, was traveling to his office in a shared autorickshaw on 24 March 2023. Respondent 3 was also a passenger in the vehicle. The Claimant stated that any physical contact with Respondent 3 was a result of the overcrowding of the vehicle. Respondent 3 interpreted this contact as intentional, leading to an argument. She used pepper spray on appellant and called the police.

The police arrested the petitioner and registered a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondent 3 also filed a complaint under the PoSH Act with the ICC.

The ICC found the petitioner guilty and recommended disciplinary action. The petitioner filed an appeal against this resolution. The court had earlier directed that no final order would be passed in the appeal without its permission.

Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla and Justice Suman Shyam examined whether the incident took place in a “place of work” under Section 2(c). o) of the Act on PoSH. The court noted that the petitioner was traveling to his office. However, neither his employer nor the employer of respondent 3 provided the transport. Furthermore, the court stated that such transport does not fall under the concept of “workplace” according to § 2 letter o) point v) of the Act on POSH.

The Bench held that the alleged incident did not take place in the “place of work”. The court noted that the ICC cannot accept a complaint unless the alleged harassment occurred in a “workplace”.

As a result, the ICC had no jurisdiction to entertain Respondent 3’s complaint. The Court declared the ICC order unsustainable and set it aside.

The court clarified that it did not rule on whether the petitioner sexually harassed Respondent 3. This matter remains open for decision in the relevant proceedings.

The Bench held that the ICC must first determine whether the alleged incident took place in a “place of work” under s. 2(a). o) of the Act on PoSH. Only an affirmative answer would give the ICC jurisdiction to conduct further investigations.

Published – 24 Jun 2026 07:31 IST