When the employer doesn’t act on the IC’s recommendations
Tabassum, an employee at a reputed firm, files a sexual harassment complaint with her company’s Internal Committee (IC). Amit, the Respondent, is a high-performing employee with an important client-facing role and a strong professional reputation. After conducting a detailed inquiry, the IC finds that the charges against Amit are conclusive. Witness statements, emails, and corroborating evidence establish that his behaviour created a hostile work environment for Tabassum, causing her mental distress.
However, Amit refuses to acknowledge the impact of his actions. Instead, he insists that his behaviour was “misinterpreted” and that termination would be “too harsh a step.” The IC, keeping in mind the seriousness of the findings and Tabassum’s trauma, recommends the termination of Amit’s employment contract. Their recommendation is based on the principle that workplace safety and dignity take precedence over performance metrics.
As per their legal duty, the IC communicates its recommendations in writing to the senior management, who hold the authority to execute disciplinary action. Yet, management hesitates. Concerned about potential media backlash and the possible loss of a key client account, they decide to delay action and “revisit the decision after internal deliberations.”
This delay raises an important question: can the employer choose not to act on the IC’s recommendations immediately?
What does the law say?
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) is clear and categorical on this matter. Once the IC has completed its inquiry and submitted its report, the employer is legally bound to act on the committee’s recommendations.
Section 13 of Chapter V of the PoSH Act explicitly states:
“The employer shall act upon the recommendation within sixty days of its receipt by him.”
This means that an employer does not have discretionary power to “review,” “delay,” or “ignore” the IC’s recommendation. The IC, as a quasi-judicial body, has the mandate to determine whether misconduct occurred. Once it makes a recommendation, the employer’s role is to execute, not re-evaluate, the decision.
In Tabassum’s case, the company’s management cannot indefinitely postpone disciplinary action. The 60-day window is a legal deadline, not a suggestion.
What if the employer fails to take action?
The law also prescribes penalties for inaction. Section 26 of Chapter VII of the PoSH Act states:
“Where the employer fails to take action under section 13, he shall be punishable with a fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees.”
This fine serves as both a penalty and a deterrent. The logic behind this clause is that failure to act enables a culture of impunity, undermining both the IC and the legal protections that employees rely on.
If Tabassum finds that her company has not taken any steps to act upon the IC’s recommendation, she can appeal to the Appellate Authority under Section 18 of the Act within 90 days of receiving the IC’s report. The appellate authority may then direct the employer to comply or impose penalties for non-compliance.
What if the employer doesn’t act even after 60 days?
If an employer continues to remain inactive beyond the sixty-day limit, the situation escalates into a violation of the PoSH Act. Continued inaction can be interpreted as deliberate non-compliance with statutory obligations.
Section 26(2) of Chapter VII provides for enhanced penalties in case of repeated offences:
“If any employer, after having been previously convicted of an offence punishable under this Act, subsequently commits and is convicted of the same offence, he shall be liable to—
(i) twice the punishment which might have been imposed on a first conviction;
(ii) cancellation, withdrawal or non-renewal of business license or registration by the Government or local authority.”
This clause underlines that the State can revoke business licenses if employers repeatedly fail to comply with the law. In other words, non-compliance has direct legal and financial implications beyond reputational damage.
Legal interpretation
In the letter and spirit of the law, the word “recommendation” does not mean “suggestion.” It only signifies that the IC itself is not the disciplinary authority, the employer is. Therefore, once the IC has made its recommendation, the employer is bound by law to execute it.
The PoSH Act also grants the IC “the same powers as a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.” This includes powers to summon witnesses, call for documents, and examine evidence. Because of this quasi-judicial status, the IC’s findings carry significant legal weight. Courts have repeatedly held that management discretion cannot override IC findings unless the inquiry was procedurally flawed or biased.
In Tabassum’s case, therefore, the company cannot justify inaction by citing “internal consultations” or “reputation concerns.” Such reasoning is not legally tenable.
Why employer compliance matters
Workplace investigations under PoSH are designed not only to provide justice to the aggrieved person but also to prevent the recurrence of sexual harassment. When an employer ignores or delays implementing IC recommendations, it sends a message to other employees that misconduct may be tolerated, especially when the perpetrator is a senior or high-performing individual.
Moreover, the credibility of the IC depends on the employer’s willingness to stand by its findings. Inaction weakens trust in the process, discourages future complainants from coming forward, and exposes the organisation to legal risk and reputational harm.
Employers are expected to act not just to comply with the law but to uphold the ethical foundation of workplace safety and equality. The principle behind Section 13 is that justice delayed is justice denied, both for the complainant and for the integrity of the organisation.
Make your entire workplace safe, reach out to us at hello@serein.inc