Conciliation Under POSH Act 2013: Rules, Restrictions & Internal Committee Responsibilities

 Introduction

Section 10 of the POSH Act, 2013, introduces a delicate and often misunderstood statutory mechanism: the option of conciliation before initiating a formal inquiry. The Internal Committee (IC) must understand that conciliation is strictly an option reserved exclusively for the complainant upon her explicit written request. The IC has no statutory authority to mandate, force, or even suggest conciliation to the parties, as coercing a settlement undermines the protective spirit of the Act and constitutes a serious procedural violation.



1. Voluntary Conciliation Under Section 10

A central requirement under Section 10(1) is that conciliation can only be initiated at the request of the aggrieved woman before the commencement of the inquiry. The Internal Committee must ensure that her decision is entirely voluntary and based on her explicit written request.

The IC must never pressure the complainant into accepting conciliation or influence her decision through organizational authority. Any coercion or forced settlement undermines the statutory safeguards established under the POSH Act.

2. Prohibition on Monetary Settlements

A central restriction under Section 10(1) is that no monetary settlement can be made the basis of conciliation. The scope of conciliation is strictly non-monetary and remedial, focusing on resolutions such as formal written apologies, reassignment of reporting lines, changes in physical seating, or voluntary undertakings of behavioral boundary compliance.

If an IC permits financial compensation to be negotiated or paid during a Section 10 conciliation, the settlement becomes legally vulnerable, potentially exposing the employer and the committee to judicial challenge.

3. Documentation and Implementation of Conciliation Agreements

When a valid conciliation agreement is reached, the IC must record the agreed terms, prepare a formal conciliation report, and forward it to the employer for implementation while providing copies to both parties.

Once conciliation is successfully recorded, no further formal inquiry into that specific complaint is conducted by the IC. However, if the respondent fails to comply with any condition of the conciliation settlement, Section 10(4) empowers the complainant to approach the IC again, at which point the committee must initiate a full formal inquiry.

4. Preventing Coercion and Misuse of Conciliation

The committee must also guard against conciliation being used as a delay tactic by respondents or corporate leadership seeking to quieten a scandal. Conciliation proceedings must be strictly time-bound and transparently documented.

The IC must ensure that the complainant's choice to opt for or reject conciliation is entirely voluntary, informed, and free from subtle organizational pressures or fear of professional disadvantage.

Conclusion

Ultimately, conciliation is a tool for restorative resolution in appropriate cases, not a bypass mechanism for accountability. By maintaining strict boundaries—prohibiting monetary settlements, preventing coercion, and ensuring enforceable terms—the Internal Committee upholds the integrity of Section 10 while providing a legally compliant pathway for amicable settlement when genuinely sought by the aggrieved woman.

 

Location: India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Filing a Complaint under the POSH Act: Procedure and Timelines

The Prevention of Sexual Harassment ( POSH ) Act, 2013, was enacted to create a safe workplace environment and ensure that incidents of sexual harassment are addressed promptly and effectively. A key aspect of the Act is the process by which employees can file a complaint if they experience sexual harassment at work. This article delves into the complaint filing procedure under the POSH Act, including the essential timelines, extensions, and rights of the complainant. 1. Who Can File a Complaint under the POSH Act? The POSH Act allows any aggrieved woman to file a complaint if she has faced sexual harassment in the workplace. The complainant can be: • A woman employed in any capacity (temporary, permanent, part-time, or full-time). • An employee in an organization (including interns and contractual staff). • A woman visiting the workplace or a client of the organization. Additionally, if the complainant is unable to file a complaint due to physical or mental incapacity or for oth...
Read more

Status of Local Committee formation under POSH.

According to Section 6(1) of the Act, "Every District Officer shall constitute in the district concerned a committee to be known as the "Local Complaints Committee" to receive sexual harassment complaints from establishments where the Internal Committee has not been formed because it has fewer than ten employees or if the complaint is against the employer himself." The Local Complaints Committee was changed to become the Local Committee in May 2016, broadening its mandate from merely handling complaints to one that requires it to act proactively to combat sexual harassment. According to a report by the Martha Farrell Foundation, POSH policies are not generally being followed to its fullest extent (2018). In accordance with this research, 655 districts had 56 percent of requests for data sets from operating Local Committees ignored. Only 29% of districts claimed to have created LCs, and 15% of those districts still hadn't done so. 43% of respondents from the uno...
Read more

Bombay High Court Stresses Fair Inquiry in Sexual Harassment Cases: Saurabh Kumar Mallick v. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Ors.

In a notable judgment upholding the principles of procedural fairness under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 ( POSH Act ), the Bombay High Court in Saurabh Kumar Mallick v. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Others highlighted the critical need for Internal Committees (ICs) to conduct impartial, transparent, and legally sound inquiries. The Court emphasized that while the POSH Act aims to protect women from harassment, it equally mandates adherence to natural justice for both complainants and respondents. The case involved Saurabh Kumar Mallick, a senior official, who challenged the findings of an Internal Committee that had found him guilty of sexual harassment. Mallick argued that the inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, including denial of opportunity to present his defense, absence of cross-examination, and lack of proper documentation of evidence. The Bombay High Cou...
Read more