Skip to content

CS Executive · Setting Up of Business, Industrial and Labour Laws · Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013

An Internal Committee inquires into a complaint by Pooja against Rahul, both employees of Deccan Pharma Ltd. The inquiry ends and the Committee finds the allegation could not be proved for lack of evidence, with no evidence of bad faith. Which is correct?

Failure to prove the complaint does not by itself justify action against Pooja. Section 14 says mere inability to substantiate need not attract action, and malicious intent must first be established after an inquiry in the prescribed manner before any action is recommended.

  1. AInability to substantiate the complaint alone need not attract action against Pooja; malicious intent must be established after an inquiry before action is recommendedCorrect
  2. BPooja must automatically be punished as the complaint failed
  3. CThe Committee can recommend action against Pooja without any inquiry into her intent
  4. DAction against Pooja is mandatory but only a warning may be given

Explanation

Section 14(1) has two provisos: mere inability to substantiate a complaint or provide adequate proof need not attract action, and malicious intent must be established after an inquiry in the prescribed procedure before action is recommended. Automatic punishment would defeat the protection for genuine complainants.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013Free diagnostic mock

More Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 questions