At CecureUs, we often get urgent questions from employees and managers:

“Our management is trying to influence the Internal Committee (IC) proceedings. Is this allowed under the PoSH Act?”

The short answer is no. Management cannot interfere in IC proceedings. The Internal Committee is meant to function independently, and any interference is against the law.

Why Independence Matters

When an employee files a complaint under the PoSH Act, 2013, the IC acts like a judicial body. That means:

• It must act fairly and independently.
• Its proceedings are confidential and final.
• Neither local management nor overseas leadership can change the outcome.

If managers or leaders try to meet the complainant, respondent, or witnesses privately, it undermines the IC’s purpose of ensuring neutrality, objectivity, and fairness.

What the Law Says

Section 16 – Confidentiality

• This section strictly prohibits sharing details about the complaint, proceedings, or recommendations.
• Any manager who discusses the case with the complainant or respondent directly is violating this rule.

Section 19 – Duties of Employer

• The employer must support the IC and not interfere with it.
• This support includes providing resources, ensuring safety, and respecting the IC’s independence.

Section 26 – Penalties

• Violating the Act can result in fines up to ₹50,000.
• Repeat offences lead to higher penalties and can even result in cancellation of business licenses.

In Rashi v. Union of India (2023), the Delhi High Court reinforced this by stating:

“The entire thrust of the complaints committee procedure is that the complainant employees are assured objectivity and neutrality in the inquiry, insulated from the employers’ possible intrusions.”

For Employees

• Trust the process; the IC is there to ensure fairness.
• Speak up if you believe management is interfering— the law supports you.
• Know your rights: Confidentiality and neutrality are guaranteed under the PoSH Act.

For Managers

• Do not intervene. Even if you want to “help,” getting involved directly can put the company at risk.
• Support without swaying. Give the IC resources and space but never try to influence the outcome.
• Respect confidentiality; avoid discussions with complainants, respondents, or witnesses.

Key Takeaways

• The IC is an independent body under the PoSH Act.
• Confidentiality is essential.
• The employer’s role: Assist and empower, not interfere.
• Interference amounts to a violation, with legal and reputational consequences.

Bottom line

At CecureUs, we remind every organization that PoSH compliance is not just about having a policy. It’s about respecting the independence of the IC.
Management interference not only weakens trust, but it also breaks the law.

Please reach out to us for any queries on PoSH compliance for your company!

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.

The post Can Management Interfere in PoSH IC Proceedings? appeared first on Prevention of Sexual Harassment, Inclusive Diversity, Employee Assistance Program | CecureUs | Chennai.

Starting July 14, 2025, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has rolled out new compliance requirements aimed at improving workplace safety and accountability. As part of these changes, companies will now need to include detailed disclosures about sexual harassment complaints in their Board Reports.

These updates come under the Companies (Accounts) Second Amendment Rules, 2025, as notified by Notification No. G.S.R. 357(E) dated May 30, 2025

Here is what is changing- 

Mandatory Disclosure of Sexual Harassment Complaints:

Under the revised rules, companies are now required to make specific disclosures in their Board Reports related to sexual harassment at the workplace.

As per Section 134 of the Companies Act, 2013, read with the amended Rule 8(5)(a) of the Companies (Accounts) Rules, 2014, companies must:

i. Provide a statement that the Company has complied with the provisions constituting an Internal Committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. 

ii. Disclose the following details regarding the complaints of sexual harassment:

1. Number of sexual harassment complaints received in the year
2. Number of complaints disposed off in the year
3. Number of cases pending more than 90 days.

Consequences of Non-compliance:

Non-compliance with these provisions can lead to penalties under Section 134(8) of the Companies Act, 2013. The fines are as follows:

• Company – ₹3,00,000
• Every officer in default: ₹50,000

However, certain relief is provided to companies of specific categories such as One Person Companies, Small Companies and Startups wherein the penalty is halved and is subject to the maximum limits below:

• Company – INR 2,00,000
• Officer in default – INR 1,00,000

Changes in a nutshell: 

 It is noteworthy that the previous mandate was a superficial and general one while the changes bring in stricter reporting and encourage better enforcement and oversight. The notification also serves as a reminder that POSH at the workplace is more than a checklist activity. Companies must be proactive in ensuring compliance to the POSH Act as well as take steps to ensure workplaces are safer for all.

Official Resources

•  https://www.mca.gov.in/content/mca/global/en/acts-rules/ebooks/notifications.html

• MCA-Notification-regarding-Companies-Accounts-Second-Amendment-Rules-2025-dated-30.05.2025 (1)

Please reach out to us for any queries on Mandatory POSH Compliance for Companies.

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.

The post Mandatory POSH Compliance for Companies from July 14, 2025 appeared first on Prevention of Sexual Harassment, Inclusive Diversity, Employee Assistance Program | CecureUs | Chennai.

The strength of any Internal Committee (IC) lies not just in its legal mandate, but in its ability to act fairly, impartially, and without prejudice. In the context of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (PoSH) Act, this means that bias—whether explicit or implicit—must be actively recognized and addressed by every IC member.

But what exactly does bias look like in a PoSH inquiry?

It could be:

• Assuming the complainant is exaggerating because they’re emotional
• Giving more credibility to the respondent because of their seniority or reputation
• Treating a team member’s friend or peer with undue leniency
• Believing one gender is “naturally more vulnerable” or “more likely to lie”

Such biases, if left unchecked, can erode the trust in the inquiry process and lead to flawed outcomes. Worse, they can reinforce the very power dynamics the PoSH Act seeks to dismantle.

Why Bias Awareness is Crucial in PoSH Cases

IC members are expected to uphold two fundamental principles of natural justice:

1. Nemo judex in causa sua – No one should be a judge in their own cause.
2. Audi alteram partem – Hear the other side.

Both these principles hinge on neutrality. Even an appearance of bias can invalidate the entire process and open the organization to reputational and legal risk.

 Case Law Precedents on IC Bias

1. V. Uma vs Nilgiri Coop. Marketing Society (2022, Madras HC)

The Court held that the presence of a biased IC member, who had prior issues with the complainant, vitiated the inquiry. The organization was directed to reconstitute the IC and restart the inquiry afresh.

2. Ruchika Singh Chhabra vs M/s Air France (2020, Delhi HC)

The High Court observed that procedural irregularities and the IC’s failure to follow neutrality—including not giving the complainant a fair hearing—resulted in a flawed process. It stressed that impartiality is the backbone of any IC investigation.

3. Medha Kotwal Lele & Ors vs Union of India (2013, SC)

This landmark case emphasized that organizations must ensure ICs are independent and unbiased, with no conflict of interest, and are capable of conducting free and fair inquiries under Vishaka Guidelines and the PoSH Act.

These cases serve as powerful reminders that bias—real or perceived—can lead to entire inquiries being overturned and judicial interventions.

Common Sources of Bias to Watch For

• Organizational Hierarchy: Being influenced by the designation or track record of the respondent
• Cultural Similarities: Aligning subconsciously with someone due to shared language, region, or background
• Gender Stereotyping: Believing men are less likely to face harassment or women are overly sensitive
• Confirmation Bias: Only seeking evidence that supports your initial impressions

Self-Awareness First: IC Members, Check Your Bias

Before handling any case, it is essential for every IC member to take a moment to self-reflect. We have created a Bias Awareness Checklist to help you do just that.

👉 Checklist Link – Click Here

Take this 3-minute reflection before your next inquiry — and revisit it during and after the process too.

What Neutrality Looks Like in Practice

• Giving equal time and attention to both parties
• Avoiding assumptions based on emotional display
• Using consistent body language and tone during interviews
• Ensuring groupthink does not influence collective decision-making
• Recusing oneself if impartiality cannot be assured

Neutrality doesn’t mean lack of empathy—it means making sure empathy doesn’t cloud objectivity.

Final Thought

In PoSH cases, bias is not just unethical—it’s unlawful. The IC’s role is one of immense responsibility. Upholding neutrality is not just about doing what’s right for the parties involved; it’s about preserving the integrity of the institution and the workplace culture.

Let’s move from unconscious bias to conscious fairness—one inquiry at a time.

Please reach out to us for any queries on Bias and Neutrality in PoSH Inquiries.

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.

The post Bias and Neutrality in PoSH Inquiries: A Non-Negotiable Responsibility for IC Members appeared first on Prevention of Sexual Harassment, Inclusive Diversity, Employee Assistance Program | CecureUs | Chennai.

In civil and quasi-judicial proceedings, the burden of proof is notably different from that in criminal cases. Rather than requiring proof “beyond a reasonable doubt,” these cases operate on the preponderance of probability principle, where the most convincing evidence prevails, even if it does not entirely remove all doubt. This approach is particularly relevant in workplace sexual harassment cases, as it provides a fairer, more practical standard in often complex and sensitive situations.

Handling Sexual Harassment Allegations Without Direct Evidence: How Preponderance of Probability Works

Case Study: Riya’s Complaint Against Her Manager

Riya, an employee, files a complaint against her manager, Kiran, accusing him of making inappropriate remarks and fostering a hostile environment. Since the incidents occurred in private settings, there are no witnesses or physical records to corroborate Riya’s claims. Kiran denies the allegations.

Faced with limited evidence, the internal committee (IC) of the organization must rely on the preponderance of probability principle to evaluate the likelihood of each party’s account and arrive at a fair decision.

Applying Preponderance of Probability in PoSH Cases

The internal committee closely examines the behaviors, statements, and reliability of each party:

1. Consistency and Detail in Testimony: Riya provides specific dates, settings, and remarks from multiple interactions with Kiran, which remain consistent across interviews.
2. Performance and Past Conduct: Riya’s record prior to Kiran’s supervision shows no performance issues or similar complaints.
3. Kiran’s Defense: Kiran’s response is solely a denial, with no substantive evidence to counter Riya’s account. Moreover, other employees have informally expressed concerns about Kiran’s behavior, though no formal complaints were filed.

Despite the absence of direct evidence, the committee finds Riya’s account more credible than Kiran’s defense and rules in her favor under the preponderance of probability standard.

When There Is No Evidence: Making Decisions on Credibility and Circumstantial Evidence

In cases like Riya’s, where no direct evidence exists, internal committees and courts turn to circumstantial evidence and the credibility of the parties involved. Here’s how they assess:

• Reliability of Testimonies: Consistency and coherence in the complainant’s statements strengthen the case, even without physical evidence.
• Conduct and Background: The behavior and history of both parties are weighed to assess the plausibility of the claims.
• Indirect Evidence: Any informal concerns or relevant details from other employees can lend support, even if they’re not formalized complaints.

In civil cases such as workplace harassment, decisions hinge on the probability of events rather than absolute certainty. Thus, even in the absence of physical evidence, if Riya’s account is deemed credible, her claim stands a strong chance of being upheld.

Conclusion

The preponderance of probability standard is essential in PoSH compliance and civil disputes where direct evidence may be lacking. It empowers internal committees to make decisions based on which side’s account is more probable, ensuring that justice is served in sensitive cases like sexual harassment. In India, legal precedents affirm that credible testimony from the complainant alone can suffice, preventing cases from being dismissed solely due to a lack of corroboration.

This principle underscores a balance between fairness and practicality, making it possible for justice to prevail even in challenging cases where evidence is scarce, and ensuring that workplace safety and respect are upheld.

Please reach out to us for any queries on Applying the Principle of Preponderance of Probability in PoSH Cases.

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.

The post Preponderance of Probability in POSH Cases: What It Means & How IC Should Apply It appeared first on Prevention of Sexual Harassment, Inclusive Diversity, Employee Assistance Program | CecureUs | Chennai.

Welcome to our comprehensive guide on the Compliance Laws enforced under the Code of Business Conduct (COBC) for corporate India. This blog post aims to elucidate the pivotal regulations that companies in India must navigate to ensure ethical operations and uphold their corporate governance standards. Let’s dive into the legal framework that shapes the backbone of COBC and explore how businesses can adhere to these standards effectively.

What is COBC?

The Code of Business Conduct (COBC) represents a fundamental set of principles that outline the ethical and legal standards expected of employees and executives in an organization. While COBC itself is not a law, it requires adherence to all applicable laws and helps companies foster a culture of integrity and compliance.

Key Compliance Laws in Corporate India

Here are some critical laws that are typically integrated into an organization’s COBC to ensure legal compliance and ethical business practices:

1. Companies Act, 2013

This comprehensive legislation governs corporate affairs in India and mandates standards for board accountability, audits, director responsibilities, and financial disclosures, ensuring that businesses operate transparently and are accountable to their stakeholders.

2. Competition Act, 2002

This act ensures fair competition and regulates anti-competitive practices in the marketplace. It addresses issues like anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominant position, and merger regulations to promote healthy market competition.

3. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

This act combats bribery and corruption in both public and private sectors. Under COBC, companies ensure mechanisms are in place to prevent any form of corruption and maintain transparency in all transactions.

4. Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act, 2013

This act requires companies to create a safe workplace by preventing and responding to incidents of sexual harassment. Incorporating POSH guidelines into COBC helps businesses protect their employees and promote a respectful work environment.

5. Information Technology Act, 2000

With cybercrimes on the rise, complying with the IT Act is essential for protecting sensitive information and managing data privacy. COBC frameworks ensure that IT policies comply with legal standards to safeguard electronic data effectively.

6. Factories Act, 1948

This act covers labor welfare and safety in industrial establishments, setting standards for working conditions, safety, and health. Incorporating this into COBC ensures compliance with safety regulations and promotes a secure working environment.

7. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Regulations

SEBI regulations are vital for maintaining fair trading practices and ensuring transparency in the securities market. They include rules on insider trading, disclosure requirements, and corporate governance, which are integral to a company’s COBC to foster a transparent and fair marketplace.

Model Standing Orders

Overview

Model Standing Orders serve as a statutory framework that outlines standard employment conditions within an industrial establishment. They cover various aspects of employment such as classifications of workers, work hours, shift operations, leaves, termination, and grievance redressal procedures.

Applicability

These orders are particularly relevant for factories, plantations, and other industrial sectors that employ a significant number of workers. They ensure that all workers are aware of their duties and responsibilities, as well as the administrative processes and ethical standards expected of them.

Implementing COBC in Your Organization

To effectively implement a COBC, a company must:

• Educate Employees: Regular training sessions on COBC and the related legal requirements are crucial for ensuring that employees understand their ethical obligations and legal responsibilities.
• Monitor and Enforce: Establishing a robust monitoring system and strict enforcement mechanisms are key to ensuring compliance with COBC.
• Review and Update: As laws and regulations change, the COBC should also be periodically reviewed and updated to remain compliant with the latest legal standards.

Conclusion

For companies operating in India, integrating these compliance laws into their COBC is not just about legal adherence but also about building trust and credibility with stakeholders. By fostering an ethical culture that prioritizes compliance, businesses can navigate the complexities of corporate governance with confidence and integrity.

Remember, a well-implemented COBC not only protects the organization from legal risks but also enhances its reputation, ensuring long-term success. Let’s embrace these practices to create a more accountable and transparent business environment in India.

Please reach out to us for any queries on Understanding Laws Enforced Under COBC in Corporate India.

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.

The post Navigating Compliance: Understanding Laws Enforced Under COBC in Corporate India appeared first on Prevention of Sexual Harassment, Inclusive Diversity, Employee Assistance Program | CecureUs | Chennai.

Addressing POSH Cases in Factories: Understanding the Process

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), mandates every organization, including factories, to establish an Internal Committee (IC) to handle sexual harassment complaints.

However, a question often arises: Is a separate departmental inquiry required in factories after the IC concludes its investigation?

Let’s explore how POSH cases are addressed in factories and whether a departmental inquiry is necessary.

How Does the POSH Act Address Complaints in Factories?

Under the POSH Act, the IC is the key body responsible for investigating complaints of sexual harassment. The IC’s role involves:

1. Conducting a detailed inquiry based on the complaint.
2. Submitting a report with findings and recommendations.
3. Recommending disciplinary actions, including penalties for the accused, if necessary.

The IC’s inquiry is designed to be thorough and legally binding, making it sufficient for many organizations to act upon.

Do Factories Require a Separate Departmental Inquiry?

Factories often have their own service rules or Conduct, Discipline, and Appeal (CDA) regulations, which may demand a departmental inquiry for certain disciplinary actions, especially major penalties like termination. This has led to differing judicial interpretations:

Cases Where IC Findings Are Deemed Sufficient

Some judicial rulings, like the Madras High Court’s decision in The Management of Christian Medical College and Hospital v. Mr. SG Dhamodharan, have emphasized that employers should act on the IC’s recommendations directly, without initiating an additional inquiry.

Cases Requiring a Departmental Inquiry

On the other hand, judgments like the Karnataka High Court ruling in Dr. Arabi U v. The Registrar Mangalore University suggest that when service rules mandate a formal departmental inquiry for severe penalties, employers should conduct one to ensure compliance with those rules.

Why Do Judicial Interpretations Differ?

The necessity of a departmental inquiry depends on:

1. Internal Service Rules: Factories operating under CDA Rules or similar frameworks may be legally bound to conduct a separate inquiry for certain actions.
2. Nature of the Penalty: For minor penalties, IC findings are often sufficient. For major penalties like dismissal, organizations might need to adhere to their internal procedures.

What Are Service Rules, and Do All Organizations Define Them?

Service rules are a formal set of policies governing employee conduct, work conditions, and disciplinary procedures. Not all organizations have them, but they are more common in factories and large establishments.

If an organization lacks defined service rules, statutory frameworks like the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, or state-specific Shops and Establishments Acts serve as default guidelines.

CDA Rules: Applicability Beyond Factories

Conduct, Discipline, and Appeal (CDA) Rules are not confined to factories. While factories and industrial units often operate under such rules due to mandates like the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, CDA frameworks are also widely adopted in:

1. Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs): Examples include banks, railways, and other government-owned organizations.
2. Large Private Corporations: Many corporate organizations implement CDA-like rules for structured employee management.
3. Service Sector Companies: IT firms and service providers adopt tailored versions of CDA Rules to streamline internal processes.
4. Educational Institutions and Healthcare Organizations: Universities and hospitals use CDA Rules for effective governance and consistency in disciplinary actions.

The applicability of CDA Rules depends on the organization’s size, nature, and regulatory environment, making them relevant across sectors to maintain workplace discipline.

Best Practices for Factories Handling POSH Cases

1. Define Clear Service Rules: Factories should ensure their rules align with the POSH Act while clarifying if departmental inquiries are needed.
2. Train the IC: Internal Committees must be well-versed in handling cases per legal and organizational protocols.
3. Seek Legal Advice: Consult legal experts to ensure compliance with both the POSH Act and internal service rules.
4. Transparent Communication: Communicate the inquiry process and its implications to employees for clarity and trust.

Conclusion

While the POSH Act provides a robust mechanism for handling sexual harassment cases, the requirement for a separate departmental inquiry in factories depends on the organization’s service rules and judicial precedents. Employers must strike a balance between compliance with the POSH Act and adherence to internal disciplinary frameworks.

By aligning POSH procedures with service rules and CDA frameworks, factories and other establishments can ensure a safer, more compliant workplace while addressing cases of sexual harassment effectively.

Please reach out to us for any queries on Departmental Inquiries.

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.

The post POSH Cases in Factories: Are Departmental Inquiries Required? appeared first on Prevention of Sexual Harassment, Inclusive Diversity, Employee Assistance Program | CecureUs | Chennai.