Please click here to download the Prism as a PDF.
Right of appeal takes precedence over compensation orders under Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013
The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh (“MP HC”) in the Dr. Dilip Kumar Dureha vs. Anusha Deepak Tyagi and Ors.[1], examined a key procedural aspect under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“PoSH Act”), namely whether a compensation order against the appellant, pursuant to the findings of the Internal Committee (“IC”) can be sustained, when the appeal against those findings is pending.
The ruling clarifies that the right of appeal under the PoSH Act is a substantive statutory right and underscores that the penal action by way of a compensation order cannot be enforced, while the final decision by the appellate authority (“Appellate Authority”), is awaited.
The MP HC held that the appellant, under Section 18 of the PoSH Act, has a procedural and substantive entitlement to approach the Appellate Authority, which must first examine the matter at hand, before determining any consequential relief from the IC’s findings.
The judgment provides important guidance to employers and employees on the procedural nuances of the POSH Act and reaffirms the appellate mechanism under Section 18 of the PoSH Act as a substantive safeguard.
Brief facts
Dr Dilip Kumar Dureha, the appellant (“Appellant”), was the former vice chancellor of Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education (“LNIPE”). Anusha Deepak Tyagi, the respondent (“Respondent”), a yoga teacher employed at LNIPE, filed a complaint before the IC under the PoSH Act, alleging a sexual harassment incident by the Appellant in 2019. The IC conducted an inquiry and prepared the IC Report in 2020 (“IC Report”), wherein it recorded its findings and confirmed the allegations against the Appellant. However, the IC did not recommend any penal action against the Appellant.
Separately, the Appellant, under Section 18 of the PoSH Act and the University Grant Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employee and Student in Higher Educational Institution) Regulations, 2015, filed an appeal against the findings of the IC Report, before the Appellate Authority (“Appeal”), which remained pending.
Subsequently, as no action was taken against the Appellant, the Respondent approached the MP HC by way of a writ petition, to seek multiple reliefs. To this, the MP HC examined the facts of the matter and awarded compensation of INR 35,00,000 (Indian Rupees thirty-five lakh) against the Appellant, INR 5,00,000 (Indian Rupees five lakh) against the State authorities for delay in registering the criminal case, and INR 1,00,000 (Indian Rupees one lakh) against the LNIPE (“Compensation Order”), for not taking the appropriate action to ensure timely redressal of the Respondent’s complaint, in the judgment titled X vs. Union of India and Ors.[2].
Aggrieved by the Compensation Order given in the X judgment (supra), the Appellant has approached the MP HC under the present case.
Issue
Whether the Compensation Order pursuant to the findings in the IC Report can be enforced, when the Appeal against the said findings is pending before the Appellate Authority?
Findings and analysis
The MP HC observed that, since the Appeal was still pending against the IC findings, any observation against the Appellant could potentially create a disadvantage or cause prejudice to the Appellant during the appellate proceedings. Especially, if the Compensation Order against the Appellant is permitted to stand, the Appellant would carry with him the assumption that the Appellant’s guilt has already been established.
Further, the MP HC highlighted that the right of appeal under the PoSH Act is a substantive right. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority must first examine the submissions of both the parties, evaluate the facts and evidence comprehensively, before a final decision or the consequential penalty is determined. In this regard, the High Court interpreted the Compensation Order as premature, which cannot be implemented until the Appeal is concluded.
The MP HC directed the Appellate Authority to provide a reasonable opportunity to the parties and envision expediating the appellate process, to be preferably completed, within 2 (two) months from the parties’ first appearance. Notably, the MP HC did not deliberate on the merits of the allegations and left for the Appellate Authority to be the decision maker.
Having examined the statutory framework and the submissions of both the parties, the MP HC set aside the Compensation Order and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority.
Conclusion
This judgment provides important guidance for both employers and employees, as it recognises that a compensatory action, stemming from the findings of the IC, cannot be enforced, where a statutory appeal against those findings is pending.
Employers must also disseminate information to their employees with respect to the statutory timeline and procedure to file an appeal against the findings of the IC, as enumerated under the PoSH Act. Such a framework would help ensure that both the complainant and respondent are aware of their statutory rights and the legal remedies enabled by the legislation.
Lastly, the ruling reinforces the appellate mechanism as a meaningful safeguard, placed as a significant layer of review under the PoSH Act, to encourage procedural fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice.
This Prism has been prepared by:
|
Sajai Singh |
Parvathy Manoj |
Akshita Sharma |
For more details, please contact km@jsalaw.com.
[1] Writ Appeal No. 2332 of 2025 (decided on June 29, 2026)
[2] Writ Petition No. 5625 of 2020
