Punjab and Haryana HC notice to Adidas India on plea alleging sexual harassment

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, September 21

Allegedly subjected to sexual harassment at workplace, an “in-house lawyer” has moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court against her erstwhile employer, Adidas India Marketing Pvt Ltd, challenging a single Judge’s decision to quash on technical grounds proceedings before an internal committee on her complaint.

Order challenged on 22 grounds

Taking up a plea challenging the judgment on as many as 22 grounds, the Division Bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Meenakshi I Mehta on Monday issued a notice of motion to Adidas and other respondents, including the State of Haryana.

Taking up her appeal challenging the judgment on as many as 22 grounds, the Division Bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Meenakshi I Mehta today issued a notice of motion to Adidas and other respondents, including the State of Haryana. The Bench also fixed January 20, next, for further hearing in the case.

Senior advocate Meet Malhotra with counsel Ritesh Aggarwal and Pallak Singh appeared before the Bench on the appellant-woman’s behalf. The Bench was told that the appellant joined the organisation as “manager-legal counsel”, vide appointment letter dated November 16, 2017, but, she was allegedly sexually harassed by a respondent-supervisor till November next year.

It was submitted that she raised the sexual harassment issue with the management, but no response was received. In January 2019, she was threatened and forced to resign before being asked to leave within three to four hours. She was neither allowed to give 30-day notice, nor was compensated in accordance with the job agreement.

The company’s “compliance official” later in the month approached her regarding the charges and assured her of fair and independent investigation. But “she was not included in any manner in the alleged internal investigation”. Despite repeated requests, the “compliance official” did not provide details of its internal committee.

The Bench was told the appellant in March 2019 was told that the internal investigation was complete, but the official refused to provide the report’s copy. A counter blast probe was conducted on the alleged wrongful reimbursement claims, but the official failed to provide details on the source of documents.

In June 2019, she received a “threatening and intimidating” letter on full and final settlement. After she failed to receive response to her follow-up emails, she submitted a complaint on “She-Box”. She was called for hearing before respondent-Local Committee, District Gurugram, following which the respondents approached the HC.

It was added that the single Judge allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings before the internal committee on her sexual harassment complaint, compelling her to move the HC. “The single Judge limited his determination to one issue, namely limitation. In taking this rather limited approach, the single Judge then brushed aside various contentions of considerable legal importance raised before him,” the petition said, adding that the defence of limitation or ‘laches’ may not find relevance in a complaint of sexual harassment persisting over a length of time.