Petitioner: Apparel Export Promotion Council
Respondent: A.K. Chopra
Date of Judgment: 20/01/1999
Bench: V.N. Khare

Facts:

In the case of ‘Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra’ (1999), the central issue involved a complaint of sexual harassment in the workplace. A female employee alleged that her supervisor had persistently made unwelcome sexual advances towards her. These incidents happened at the office of the Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC), where both the complainant and the alleged harasser were employed.

The respondent in the case, A.K. Chopra, held the position of a private secretary to the chairman of the appellant, Apparel Export Promotion Council. On August 12, 1988, the respondent forced a female employee, referred to as Miss X, to accompany him to the Business Centre at the Taj Palace hotel to take dictation from the chairman. It should be noted that Miss X was not adequately trained for this task. Taking advantage of the secluded location, the respondent made unwelcome advances towards her by sitting too close and touching her despite her objections. He even attempted to molest her in the elevator while returning to the basement of the business center. On August 18, a complaint was filed against the respondent, leading to his suspension. An inquiry officer was appointed to investigate the matter, and based on the accounts of witnesses and evidence, it was concluded that the respondent was guilty of molestation and his actions towards Miss X were inappropriate. As a result, on June 28, 1989, the disciplinary authority removed the respondent from service based on the findings of the inquiry officer.The respondent, who had been removed from service, appealed against this decision to the Staff Committee (Appellate authority) of the appellant. However, the appeal was dismissed. In response, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the decision of the staff committee. The learned single judge, after considering the case, determined that the respondent had attempted to molest the complainant, but had not actually carried out the act of molestation. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, but the appellant was directed to reinstate the respondent in a non-Delhi office for a minimum of two years without providing back wages.

The appellant, dissatisfied with this ruling, filed a Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A) against the decision of the learned single judge. Unfortunately, the division bench upheld the same conclusion reached by the learned single judge and dismissed the L.P.A. Feeling aggrieved, the employer-appellant pursued the case further by appealing to the Apex court through a Special Leave Petition, which was subsequently granted.

The complainant reported the harassment to management, but no significant action was taken. Consequently, she approached the AEPC’s internal complaints committee and filed a complaint. The committee conducted an investigation and determined that the supervisor was indeed responsible for sexual harassment. Despite this finding, the management only issued a warning to the supervisor and transferred him to another department.

Unsatisfied with the response from management, the complainant filed a case in the Delhi High Court, seeking proper action against the supervisor and the AEPC. The High Court ruled in favor of the complainant, stating that the management’s actions were insufficient, and the employer could not evade liability for the actions of their employees.

This case brought attention to the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace and emphasized the responsibility of employers to prevent and address such behavior. The judgment reinforced the concept of vicarious liability, which holds employers accountable for the actions of their employees, particularly in cases of sexual harassment. This landmark case significantly influenced the legal framework surrounding sexual harassment in India and played a role in subsequent developments, including the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act in 2013.

Issues:

1. In instances of sexual harassment, is physical contact a necessary element?
2. If a superior’s behavior towards a female employee does not meet standards of decency and modesty, does it constitute sexual harassment?
3. Does attempting to molest a female employee at the workplace go against the expected code of conduct and appropriate behavior for a superior?
4. Does the High Court have the authority to intervene in decisions made by the disciplinary authority?

In the case of Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999), the court discussed the concept of vicarious liability of employers for acts of sexual harassment committed by their employees. The case raised important questions about the responsibility of employers to provide a safe and harassment-free workplace environment, particularly for women.

Key issues addressed in the case were:

1. Vicarious Liability: The case examined whether an employer could be held responsible for the actions of their employees, even if the employer had no knowledge or involvement. The court ruled that under certain conditions, employers can be held vicariously liable for acts of sexual harassment committed by their employees.
2. Definition of “Employee”: The case also clarified the interpretation of the term “employee” within the context of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act. It confirmed that the Act is applicable to various forms of employment relationships, including temporary and contractual employees, as well as service providers.
3. Nature of Harassment: The court acknowledged that sexual harassment extends beyond physical advances to encompass verbal and non-verbal behaviors that create a hostile or intimidating environment for women at work.
4. Preventive Measures by Employers: The court emphasized the importance of employers taking proactive steps to prevent sexual harassment. It stressed the need for well-defined policies, guidelines, and awareness programs to ensure a safe and respectful workplace environment.

The judgment in the Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra case played a significant role in shaping the legal framework regarding sexual harassment in Indian workplaces. It established the principle of vicarious liability, reinforcing the employer’s responsibility to prevent and address sexual harassment incidents.

Arguments:

• Petitioner:

The Significance of Vicarious Liability in Cases of Sexual Harassment: Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999). In the landmark case of Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999), the petitioner, the Apparel Export Promotion Council, put forth a series of arguments challenging the concept of vicarious liability in cases of sexual harassment.

1. Lack of Vicarious Liability: A Shift in Perspective: The petitioner contended that the principle of vicarious liability should not be applicable in instances of sexual harassment. They believed that holding the employer accountable for the actions of an individual employee, if those actions were outside the scope of employment, was unreasonable. According to their stance, the employer should not be held responsible for the misconduct of their employees beyond the workplace.
2. No Foreseeability: A Question of Reasonableness: The petitioner argued that the accused employee’s actions were not foreseeable, and the employer had no grounds to anticipate or prevent such behavior. Their claim rested on the assertion that the employer acted without negligence in providing a safe working environment. They contended that without prior knowledge or ability to predict the actions of the accused, it would be unfair to impose vicarious liability on the employer.
3. No Contributory Negligence: An Emphasis on Individual Responsibility: The petitioner claimed that the complainant failed to take reasonable steps to protect herself from harassment, neglecting to utilize available mechanisms for redressal. They argued that the complainant’s lack of action should be taken into consideration when determining liability. By highlighting the complainant’s alleged negligence, the petitioner sought to diminish the employer’s responsibility for the harassment.
4. Unilateral Action of the Accused: Detaching Employer Liability: The petitioner asserted that the accused employee’s actions were independent and not influenced by the employer’s directives or the work environment. They argued that the employer should not be held liable for actions solely attributable to the individual employee, as they were beyond the employer’s control. Their stance aimed to separate the employer’s liability from the employee’s actions.

Despite the petitioner’s compelling arguments, the Supreme Court of India, through its judgment, dismissed these contentions and upheld the concept of vicarious liability in cases of sexual harassment within the framework of the POSH Act. The Court established that employers should be held responsible for the actions of their employees, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a safe and harassment-free work environment.

By affirming the principle of vicarious liability, the Supreme Court of India took a significant step forward in promoting the rights and protection of victims of sexual harassment in the workplace. This judgment serves as a precedent, reinforcing the accountability of employers in preventing and addressing instances of sexual harassment, and creating a platform for fostering a culture of respect and equality.

• Respondent:

Vicarious Liability in Sexual Harassment Cases: Challenging Employer Responsibility. In the case of Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, the respondent’s arguments primarily focused on challenging the imposition of vicarious liability on the employer for acts of sexual harassment committed by an employee. Let’s delve into the key arguments presented by the respondent’s side and explore the potential counterpoints they may have raised.

1. No Direct Involvement: Debunking Employer Responsibility:  The respondent may have strongly contended that the employer should not bear responsibility for the actions of an individual employee who engaged in sexual harassment. Their main argument might have been that the employer had no direct involvement or knowledge of the incident, and therefore should not be held accountable.
2. Employee’s Personal Conduct: Distinguishing Official Duties: The respondent might have emphasized that the employee’s actions constituted personal misconduct and were not within the scope of employment. They could have argued that the employee’s behavior was unrelated to his official duties and not authorized by the employer, thereby disassociating the employer from any liability.
3. No Control Over Personal Behavior: Employer’s Limited Influence: A key aspect of the respondent’s argument might have been the assertion that employers cannot control an employee’s personal behavior outside of the workplace. They could have emphasized that it would be unjust to hold the employer accountable for acts committed beyond the realm of their control.
4. Implementation of Preventive Measures: Addressing Sexual Harassment: The respondent’s side could have highlighted the employer’s proactive efforts in addressing sexual harassment. They might have pointed out that the employer had already taken preventive measures, such as establishing an internal complaints committee, and should therefore not be held liable for the actions of an individual employee.
5. Due Diligence: Unforeseen and Isolated Incident: To support their case, the respondent might have presented evidence showcasing their commitment to preventing sexual harassment. They might have argued that they had exercised reasonable measures to prevent such incidents and that the particular occurrence in question was unforeseen and could not have been prevented.

It is crucial to note that the specific arguments presented by the respondent’s side would depend on the details of the case and the legal strategies pursued by their legal counsel. By skillfully presenting these counterpoints, the respondent aimed to contest the imposition of vicarious liability on the employer in cases of sexual harassment.

Remember, a thorough understanding of the nuances of each argument allows for effective advocacy while ensuring the protection of both the rights of the victim and the interests of the employer.

Ratio decidendi:

In the case of “Vishaka v. the State of Rajasthan,” the highest court provided a broader explanation of “sexual harassment.” This encompasses unwelcome sexually oriented actions, whether explicit or implied, such as:

• Physical touch and advances;
• Requests for sexual favors;
• Remarks with sexual connotations;
• Displaying explicit material;
• Any other unwelcome physical, verbal, or non-verbal behaviors of a sexual nature.

Obiter dicta:

In the same case, the High Court’s judge offered a narrower interpretation of “Sexual Harassment,” concluding that the respondent had “attempted to harass her” without successful molestation or “being able to harass her” due to the absence of physical contact evidence.

Judgement:

The appellant further escalated the case to the esteemed Supreme Court through a writ petition. Addressing the increasing issue of workplace sexual harassment against women, a three-judge bench, in the judicial review of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), established specific guidelines. These guidelines encompassed instances of unwelcome sexually oriented conduct (explicitly or implicitly), including: (a) physical contact and advances; (b) requests for sexual favors; (c) sexually suggestive remarks; (d) display of explicit material; and € any other unwelcome physical, verbal, or non-verbal behaviors of a sexual nature.

This legal precedent, as exemplified by the Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra case, highlights that courts must scrutinize cases of sexual harassment with a broad perspective, avoiding undue focus on minor or narrow technicalities like the term “molestation.” Such cases require careful handling and sensitivity to prevent demoralization of female employees. Courts are advised to evaluate the entire set of facts to ascertain the authenticity of the complaint. The Supreme Court emphasized that sympathy and leniency in such cases are misplaced and unwise.

The Supreme Court found fault with the High Court's approach, stating that it disregarded the actual circumstances and the respondent’s actions that ran contrary to decency and morality. It contended that the High Court shouldn’t have intervened in deciding the appropriate punishment, as this matter fell solely under the jurisdiction of the competent authority. Reducing the punishment in cases like this would negatively impact the morale of female workers and represent a backward step. The Supreme Court emphasized that if the inquiry adheres to rules, regulations, and natural justice principles, the imposed punishment lies exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority.

Consequently, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s ruling, upholding the decisions of the Disciplinary Authority and Departmental Authority to remove the respondent from service.

Case Analysis:

Upon examining the entire case, a noteworthy aspect emerges: the High Court’s error lay in disregarding the well-established context of the departmental proceedings and instead concentrating on a limited viewpoint. The High Court’s intervention in the company proceedings was unwarranted, and it should have refrained from doing so. The authority of appeal possesses the capability and jurisdiction to assess the evidence and arrive at its independent conclusion. In this specific instance, the appellate authority labeled the situation as one of sexual harassment and consequently imposed penalties on the respondent.

The contemporary society’s imperative is to eradicate workplace sexual harassment, ensuring that women can lead lives marked by serenity, dignity, and respect. It becomes the employer’s responsibility to establish a secure working atmosphere, and any violation of this obligation should entail appropriate sanctions. It would be discriminatory to allow a situation where a woman’s legitimate objections could jeopardize her employment. It’s consistent to assert that every instance of workplace sexual harassment encroaches upon the fundamental rights to gender equality, life, liberty, and dignity. By creating a secure work environment, female employees’ sense of safety is enhanced, leading to improved work efficiency and contributing to the advancement of a better, more developed society.

.   .   .

References:

• https://kanoonsangrah.com
• https://www.juscorpus.com