Skip to main content

Conciliation and Posh act 2013

Conciliation is a method of resolving a conflict between parties by the use of a mediator. Only if the aggrieved party demands it, the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) will facilitate conciliation as a means of resolving workplace sexual assault complaints.

Before conducting an investigation under section 11, the ICC should attempt to resolve the dispute between the aggrieved woman and the respondent by conciliation. It should be remembered that the respondent has no right to request conciliation) and that “no monetary settlement” shall be used as a ground for conciliation. Where a settlement has been reached, the ICC shall report the terms of the agreement and forward them to the employer, who shall proceed in accordance with the advice.

The ICC shall supply the aggrieved woman and the respondent with copies of the resolution as reported.

Where a settlement is arrived at, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the ICC.  Conciliation is a mechanism used by the ICC to offer a substantive approach to problems posed by complainants in a reasonable and impartial manner. A settlement, such as an oral/written apology or admission of guilt, to prevent a protracted court proceeding that may be costly, inconvenient, and frustrating.

There is no prescribed procedure by the Act, so the ICC has freedom to conduct it the way it seems appropriate and follow the principles of natural justice and gender sensitivity. 

Suggested procedure to be followed:  Only carefully examined and deemed minor offenses should be solved through conciliation and major offenses (As decided by ICC to be serious) should not be attempted by conciliation.

1. A written complaint by the victim/complainant and a written request for conciliation (either through mail or written complaint) is a must.  

2. Complainant may in such request, set out her terms for conciliation (cannot include terms for monetary settlement). 

3. The ICC has to provide a copy of the complaint and such terms of conciliation as requested by the complainant to the Respondent (alleged harasser).  

4. The ICC should choose an appropriate and comfortable venue for both the parties to initiate the talk. 

5. The conciliation has to be conducted by any member of the ICC chosen by the presiding officer. The external consultant may oversee the proceedings to eliminate any sort of bias. 

6. ICC has to document details of meeting between the committee representatives, the complainant and respondent (alleged harasser) in the conciliation proceeding.  

7. Once a satisfactory settlement has been arrived at, it has to be documented and signed by all the parties who were part of the conciliation procedure. 

8. A copy of the settlement has to be given to the complainant, the respondent, the employer and one copy to be filed by the ICC for their records. 

9. Any information related to conciliation in a matter of sexual harassment shall not be published, communicated or made known to the public, press and media. The settlement reached between parties i.e. ICC members, Complainant, Respondent (alleged harasser) shall remain utmost confidential.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Posh Act - Confidentiality vs Transparency

Confidentiality vs Transparency – Managing Sensitive Investigations Confidentiality is a statutory mandate under the POSH Act . Disclosure of identities, contents of complaint, witness details, or recommendations is prohibited. The objective is to protect dignity and prevent retaliation or workplace gossip. However, confidentiality does not mean secrecy without accountability. Employers must still ensure procedural transparency between parties sharing responses, evidence summaries, and findings. The balance lies in controlled disclosure within the inquiry framework, not public communication. Improper leaks can result in statutory penalties and reputational damage. Organizations must restrict access to inquiry records and sensitize leadership about non-interference. Simultaneously, leadership must communicate a culture of zero tolerance without discussing case specifics. Transparency about policy commitment, rather than individual cases, strengthens trust. Managing this balance is criti...
Post a Comment
Read more

POSH Cases: Madras High Court Highlights the Need for Sensitivity and Neutrality

V. Anantharaman v. The Institute of Financial Management & Others In an important judgment that underscores the need for sensitivity, neutrality, and procedural fairness in handling sexual harassment complaints, the Madras High Court in V. Anantharaman v. The Institute of Financial Management & Others reinforced the responsibilities of Internal Committees (ICs) and employers under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 ( POSH Act ). The Court emphasized that while the protection of the complainant is central to the Act, the rights of the accused must also be safeguarded through a fair and unbiased process. The case involved V. Anantharaman, a senior official accused of sexual harassment, who challenged the Internal Committee’s inquiry process on grounds of procedural lapses, lack of neutrality, and failure to provide him a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The petitioner contended that the IC's proceedings we...
Post a Comment
Read more

Delhi High Court Reaffirms Importance of Natural Justice in POSH Inquiries: Somaya Gupta v. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Ors

In a landmark judgment reinforcing the principles of fairness and impartiality under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 ( POSH Act ), the Delhi High Court in Somaya Gupta v. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Others (2018) clarified the essential procedural safeguards to be followed by Internal Committees (ICs) while handling complaints of sexual harassment. The Court held that mere apprehension of bias is insufficient to exclude a member from the Internal Committee; rather, there must be a real likelihood of bias established on substantive grounds. The case involved a faculty member at Jawaharlal Nehru University who raised concerns over the composition of the Internal Committee, alleging potential bias and lack of impartiality. The petitioner sought the removal of certain committee members on the grounds of perceived conflict of interest and personal connections, fearing that these factors could influence the inquiry process....
Post a Comment
Read more