Conciliation Under POSH: A Procedural Safeguard, Not a Formality
Conciliation under Section 10 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (1) is often misunderstood. It is neither a compulsory pre-condition to inquiry nor a mere administrative formality. It is a statutory safeguard designed to give the aggrieved woman agency in deciding how her complaint proceeds. While conciliation can only occur at her request and cannot involve monetary settlement, the law makes one thing clear the option must be made known to her before the inquiry begins.
In 2024, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dr. Kali Charan Sabat vs. Union of India & Others (2) examined what happens when this safeguard is overlooked. The case did not turn primarily on the substance of the allegations, but on whether the Internal Committee had complied with the statutory sequence mandated under Section 10 before initiating inquiry. The Court’s reasoning serves as a significant reminder that under the POSH framework, process is not incidental to justice it is integral to it.
At the heart of the case was a fundamental question:
What happens if the complainant is not informed of her right to seek conciliation before the inquiry begins?
What Was Discussed in the Case?
In this matter, the Internal Committee proceeded directly to inquiry without formally informing the aggrieved woman of the option to seek conciliation under Section 10.
The Court examined:
- Whether Section 10 creates a mandatory procedural step
- Whether failure to inform the complainant about conciliation affects the validity of the inquiry
- Whether such a lapse can invalidate consequential actions such as termination
The judges emphasized that Section 10 clearly contemplates that before initiating an inquiry, the aggrieved woman must be given the opportunity to opt for conciliation (non-monetary). While conciliation itself is voluntary and cannot be imposed, awareness of the option is not discretionary.
Because the complainant was not informed of this statutory right, the Court found procedural non-compliance. This contributed to the termination of the respondent being held invalid.
Is Conciliation Mandatory?
The law does not make conciliation compulsory under Section 10 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. What it makes essential, however, is that the aggrieved woman must be informed of the option before the inquiry begins. Conciliation can only take place at her request, and the statute is explicit that monetary settlement cannot form the basis of such conciliation. Only where conciliation is either declined or fails can the Internal Committee proceed with a formal inquiry.
The distinction is subtle but legally significant. Conciliation itself is optional. Informing the complainant about conciliation is not. The statutory framework places the choice squarely in the hands of the aggrieved woman, but it also places the obligation of disclosure firmly on the Internal Committee
Why This Decision Matters
The decision in Dr. Kali Charan Sabat vs. Union of India & Others before the Madhya Pradesh High Court reinforces an important compliance lesson: POSH is a procedure-driven statute. Even where allegations are serious and the inquiry has been substantively conducted, failure to comply with mandatory procedural safeguards can undermine the legitimacy of the outcome.
In this case, the issue was not that the respondent was denied conciliation. The right to seek conciliation does not belong to the respondent at all. It belongs exclusively to the aggrieved woman. The procedural lapse arose because the complainant was not informed of her statutory right under Section 10 before the inquiry commenced. This omission was treated as a material defect, rendering the Internal Committee’s findings and the consequential sanctions legally vulnerable.
For organisations, the implication is clear. The process must reflect that the complainant was formally informed of the option of conciliation, her response must be documented, and the inquiry must only commence thereafter. Skipping this stage, even unintentionally, can expose the entire proceeding to judicial scrutiny.
The Broader Implication
The POSH framework is carefully structured to balance sensitivity with procedural integrity. It is designed not only to address workplace harassment but also to ensure fairness and due process. This decision serves as a reminder that compliance under POSH is not outcome-centric; it is fundamentally process-centric.
In workplace redressal mechanisms, procedure is not a technicality. It is the foundation upon which the validity of every decision rests.
Notes: