The Orissa High Court in the case Biyat Pragya Tripathy v. Government of Odisha & Ors observed and has given last chance to authorities under both the Union and the State Government to implement the mandate as stated under Section 19(b) of the Sexual Harassment of Women and Workplace (the Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, i.e., the ‘POSH Act’.
The court stated that the said provisions require all the employers in order to display at any conspicuous place in the workplace, the penal consequences of sexual harassments; and the order constituting the Internal Committee constituted as stated under Section 4(1).
The Division bench comprising of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Murahari Sri Raman in the case observed wherein the plea is moved by one Biyat Pragya Tripathy and has issued the notice to the opposite parties on December 07, 2022, wherein the court directed them to file affidavit showing the status of implementation of Section 19(b) of the POSH Act.
Earlier, the matter came up before the division bench comprising of Chief Justice Subhasis Talapatra and Justice Savitri Ratho, thus, the court queried the opposite parties about the status of implementation, to which the counsel appearing for the Central Government replied that he in the case failed to obtain instruction from the authorities despite of his efforts.
The counsel, Sujata Dash appearing for the petitioner submitted before the court that despite of the order passed, there being no substantial progress in compliance of the previous order. Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State Government conveyed that though the authorities are actively endeavouring to comply with the order, but due to lack of intra-departmental coordination, thus, the mandate could not be fulfilled so far.
It has also been informed by the counsel appearing for the Union Government to the court that if the direction is being passed in the substantial progress in compliance of the previous order. Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State Government conveyed that though the authorities are actively endeavouring to comply with the order, thus, but due to lack of intra-departmental coordination, the mandate could not be fulfilled so far.
The court after hearing the submissions made on behalf of all the parties went on to explain the connotation of ‘workplace’ as stated under Section 2(o) of the POSH Act.
It has also been directed by the said court that a ‘toll free telephone number’ and committed phone number be provided in the billboard so that whenever or wherever the woman perceives threat of sexual harassment or fear of violation of dignity in any manner, thus, she can immediately report for her protection.
The court in the case directed all the concerned authorities to carry out its direction and implement the said provision within the next three months.
The bench in the case observed and has cautioned against the non-implementation of the direction stated that this public interest litigation, PIL is disposed of, but this court fails in our duty and if this court does not mention that the violation or non-compliance of the above direction would entail the contempt of Court and this Court shall take a strict view and if such violation is being brought to the notice of this Court by any concerned citizen.
The counsel, Advocate Dr. Sujata Dash appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, Ms. S. Patnaik, Addl. Govt. Advocate.; Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, Central Govt. Counsel represented the respondent.
