Decision
While the Court acknowledged the overlap between “employer” and “employee” under the Act, it held that merely occupying a senior or managerial position does not automatically make a person an "employer". It stated that in scenarios such as these where all accused had superiors to whom they were answerable, the court deemed it appropriate to consider them “employees” under the POSH Act over whom the Internal Committee would have jurisdiction.
In the case of Dr. David G. Samuel v. Collector/District Magistrate, Pune & Ors., where the President of the Governing Board, against whom the complaint was made, argued that the matter should be heard by the Local Committee on the ground that he was an “employer”, the Court adopted a similar stance. It held that the affairs of the society were carried on and managed by the Governing Board, which was responsible for the governance of the institution, and that no individual was solely responsible for its governance. Accordingly, the Court confirmed that the Internal Committee had jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The Calcutta High Court adopted a similar stance in the case of Banani Chattopadhyay v Union of India and Others, where the accused was the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of a company. The Court observed that the accused was answerable to the Board of Directors, and hence, the Board being the ultimate authority is the “employer” under the POSH Act and not the accused.
However, in Rashi v. Union of India & Anr., where the IC comprised members from the same departmental as the accused senior, the Court adopted a different stance. Relying on the presumption established in M. Rajendran v. M. Daisyrani, it held that where the accused has control or influence over IC members, the inquiry may be vitiated by bias.
