A complaint was made against the Petitioner (L.S. Sibu), an employee of Air India by 17 female employees, alleging sexual harassment. The validity of the enquiry report is challenged by the petitioner on the grounds of non-compliance with principles of natural Justice. The Petitioner contended that the Committee had come to a conclusion without giving any reasonable opportunity for him to cross examine the complainants and controvert the factual finding of the case. Respondents contended that it is only preliminary report to find the involvement of the petitioner in the sexual harassment and on the basis of the report further disciplinary action would be initiated and the petitioner can defend any action proposed in such proceedings.

The enquiry conducted by the ICC is not a preliminary enquire, but a full fledged enquiry according to Section 13(3)(i). It was further held that the ICC should give a fair opportunity to the delinquent to defend the charges against him and the principles of natural Justice should be followed in conducting the enquiry.

The court relied to the case of Medha Kotwal Lele vs. Union of India wherein it was held that the status of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) is deemed to be an Inquiry Committee for disciplinary action under service rules. Due to this status, the ICC can determine the compensation payable by the accused to the aggrieved woman. Thus, the report of the ICC is the determining factor to take follow up action by the employer in accordance with service rules or otherwise. Law provides an appellate remedy against the recommendation. Thus, the inquiry conducted by the ICC as to the fact finding is final unless it is varied in appeal. It cannot be varied by the employer in a follow up action.

The fundamental principles relating to the principles of natural justice is that when a prejudicial statements are made, the same shall not be used against any person without giving him an opportunity to correct and contradict. In sexual harassment complaint, sometimes the complainant may not have courage to depose all that has happened to her at the workplace. There may be an atmosphere restraining free expression of victim’s grievance before the Committee. The privacy and secrecy of such victims’ also required to be protected. It is to be noted that verbal cross-examination is not the sole criteria to controvert or contradict any statement given by the aggrieved before any authority. If the Committee is of the view that the aggrieved is a feeble and cannot withstand any cross-examination, the Committee can adopt such other measures to ensure that the witnesses statement is contradicted or corrected by the delinquent in other manner.The fair opportunity, therefore, has to be understood in the context of atmosphere of free expression of grievance. If the Committee is of the view that the witness or complainant can freely depose without any fear, certainly, the delinquent can be permitted to have verbal cross-examination of such witnesses.