Recent developments have once again brought the spotlight on a critical yet often overlooked aspect of POSH compliance—the requirement to constitute separate Internal Committees (ICs) for each workplace or administrative unit.
Recent allegations suggest that complaints from multiple locations, were being handled by a centralized IC, raising concerns about accessibility, effectiveness, and adherence to the law. Employees reportedly found it difficult to approach committee members who were not physically present at their workplace, thereby weakening the very purpose of the POSH framework.
What the Law Clearly States
Provided that where the offices or administrative units of the workplace are located at different places or divisional or sub-divisional level, the Internal Committee shall be constituted at all administrative units or offices.
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 is unambiguous on this point. Under Section 4, every employer is required to constitute an Internal Committee at each office or administrative unit if the organization has multiple locations.
The intent is clear:
- Ensure accessibility for employees
- Enable timely response to complaints
- Build trust and visibility of the IC
A centralized IC, especially one located far from the employee’s workplace, directly contradicts this objective.
Judicial and Regulatory Reinforcement
The requirement to constitute separate Internal Committees for each workplace/unit is not merely interpretational—it has been consistently reinforced through judicial pronouncements and regulatory actions:
- In the Global Health Pvt. Ltd. case, authorities imposed a penalty of ₹50,000 on the organization for failing to constitute an Internal Committee at its Indore unit, clearly establishing that each location must have its own IC.
- The Hema Latha case held that an Internal Committee located far away from the aggrieved woman’s workplace does not meet the intent of the POSH Act. The Court emphasized that accessibility and proximity are integral to the effectiveness of the IC, and a committee situated hundreds of kilometers away defeats the purpose of the law.
- In multiple inspections and compliance reviews across states, labour authorities have raised observations against organizations adopting centralized IC structures, especially where employees at branch offices lack direct access to IC members. While such instances may not always lead to public litigation, they often result in notices, directions, and corrective mandates.
- The Ministry of Women and Child Development, through its POSH Handbook, reiterates that employers must constitute an Internal Committee at each administrative unit or office, reinforcing the statutory requirement under Section 4.
- The structure of SHe-Box further strengthens this position. Organizations are required to register IC details unit-wise, with unique information for each office, indicating that the compliance framework itself is designed around decentralized ICs.
- Recent scrutiny involving Tata Consultancy Services has once again highlighted the risks of centralized ICs, particularly in large, multi-location organizations where accessibility and responsiveness become critical concerns.
Why Centralized ICs Fail in Practice
While organizations may adopt centralized ICs for administrative convenience, the risks far outweigh the perceived efficiency:
- Lack of Accessibility
Employees may hesitate or feel uncomfortable reaching out to members who are not physically present or familiar with the workplace environment.
- Delayed Response
Infrequent visits or remote handling can lead to delays in addressing sensitive complaints.
- Reduced Trust
A distant IC often leads to a perception that concerns are not taken seriously.
- Non-Compliance Risk
Most importantly, centralized ICs can result in direct violation of statutory requirements, exposing organizations to penalties and reputational damage.
Beyond Compliance: Impact on Business
The implications are not limited to legal risk:
- Reputational damage impacting employer branding
- Operational disruptions due to escalations
- Loss of employee trust and morale
- Increased scrutiny from regulators such as the National Commission for Women
The recent scrutiny of organizations like TCS is a reminder that POSH compliance is not just a policy requirement—it is a business-critical function.
What Organizations Must Do
To ensure both compliance and effectiveness, organizations should:
- Constitute separate ICs for each office/location
- Ensure local representation and accessibility
- Maintain proper quorum and training of IC members
- Register each IC appropriately (including on SHe-Box where applicable)
- Conduct regular awareness and training programs
The concept of centralized ICs is not supported by law and undermines the purpose of the POSH framework. Organizations must move beyond convenience-driven structures and align with the legal mandate and spirit of the Act.
This is not just about compliance—it is about creating a workplace where employees feel safe, heard, and supported.
Ensuring POSH compliance goes beyond policies—it requires the right structure, trained Internal Committees, and consistent implementation across all locations. At CecureUs, we support organizations with IC setup, External Member services, training, and end-to-end compliance.
Connect with us to assess your POSH readiness and strengthen your workplace compliance framework. Write to us at connect@cecureus.com for a free consulting if you have any queries on how to form IC.
For more blogs and articles, visit our official website. Contact us for workshops and queries related to POSH, EAP (Employee Assistance Program) , Diversity and Inclusion and Code Of Conduct.
