Criminal Liability For Workplace Harassment In Industrial And Garment Sectors
⚖️ I. Introduction
Workplace harassment — especially sexual harassment — is a grave concern in industrial and garment sectors where women often work in vulnerable conditions. Indian law imposes criminal liability on perpetrators and, in some cases, on employers who fail to prevent such acts.
🧾 II. Legal Framework
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
Section 354 – Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.
Section 354A – Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment (added by Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013).
Section 509 – Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
Section 506 – Criminal intimidation.
Section 509A (State Amendments) – Covers acts specific to workplace situations in some states.
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”)
Defines workplace harassment broadly.
Mandates Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs).
Provides both civil and criminal remedies.
Factories Act, 1948 and Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
Require safe working conditions and prohibit indecent behavior or abuse.
🧩 III. Nature of Criminal Liability
Criminal liability arises when:
The act constitutes an offence under the IPC (e.g., physical contact, demands for sexual favors, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature).
The employer fails to implement the POSH Act or ignores complaints.
The workplace culture tolerates or abets harassment.
⚖️ IV. Detailed Case Laws
Below are six major cases illustrating how courts in India have dealt with criminal liability for workplace harassment, especially relevant to industrial and garment sectors.
1. Vishaka & Others v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241
Facts:
A social worker, Bhanwari Devi, employed by the Rajasthan government, was gang-raped by upper-caste men for trying to stop child marriage. No specific law on workplace sexual harassment existed then.
Held:
The Supreme Court laid down “Vishaka Guidelines”, recognizing sexual harassment as a violation of Fundamental Rights (Articles 14, 19, and 21).
Employers were held liable to prevent and redress harassment.
Importance:
Formed the basis for the POSH Act, 2013.
Established criminal and constitutional liability of offenders.
2. Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999) 1 SCC 759
Facts:
A senior officer attempted to molest a female subordinate in a hotel during an official trip. He was dismissed. The Delhi High Court reinstated him, but the Supreme Court overturned this.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that even an attempt to sexually harass a woman amounts to misconduct and criminal harassment under Sections 354 and 509 IPC.
The employer’s dismissal was upheld.
Importance:
Affirmed that attempts and gestures can attract criminal liability.
Especially relevant to industrial export and garment sectors where supervisors hold authority over women workers.
3. Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2013) 1 SCC 297
Facts:
The petitioner complained about the non-implementation of Vishaka Guidelines across India. Many industries, including garment factories, lacked Internal Complaints Committees.
Held:
The Supreme Court directed all government and private employers to implement Vishaka Guidelines strictly, failing which criminal and departmental action would be taken.
Importance:
Reinforced employer’s statutory and criminal responsibility.
Non-compliance can lead to penal consequences under POSH Act, 2013.
4. State of Punjab v. Major Singh (AIR 1967 SC 63)
Facts:
The accused committed indecent assault on a 7½-month-old child. Though not a workplace case, it clarified the meaning of “outraging the modesty of a woman” under Section 354 IPC.
Held:
The Court held that the “modesty of a woman” is a virtue every female possesses, and assault with sexual intent constitutes a criminal offence.
Importance:
Established a broad interpretation of Section 354 IPC, applied in workplace cases involving physical contact.
5. Dr. Punita K. Sodhi v. Union of India & Ors. (2010) Delhi HC
Facts:
A woman doctor alleged sexual harassment by a superior officer at a government hospital. The Internal Complaints Committee found evidence, but no proper criminal action was taken.
Held:
Delhi High Court emphasized that failure to take criminal action after proof of harassment violates women’s rights. The Court ordered disciplinary and criminal proceedings against the accused.
Importance:
Clarified that harassment at the workplace invokes criminal liability, not just departmental penalties.
6. S. Sudha v. The Commissioner of Police (Madras High Court, 2019)
Facts:
A garment factory worker in Tamil Nadu alleged harassment by a supervisor who used abusive language and inappropriate physical gestures. Police initially refused to register an FIR.
Held:
The Madras High Court directed the police to register an FIR under Sections 354A and 509 IPC and criticized the employer for failing to maintain a safe workplace under the POSH Act.
Importance:
Directly relevant to the garment sector.
Shows how criminal liability can arise both for the offender and the employer (for negligence).
7. V. Mohanraj v. Tamil Nadu Handloom and Textiles Department (Madras HC, 2020)
Facts:
A female weaving assistant accused her supervisor of repeated sexual harassment and intimidation. The internal committee delayed inquiry.
Held:
Court held that delay or inaction by the Internal Committee attracts liability under Section 26 of the POSH Act and directed criminal prosecution under IPC Sections 354A and 509.
Importance:
Demonstrated that failure to act promptly amounts to abetment of harassment.
🧱 V. Employer’s Criminal Liability
Under the POSH Act, Section 26, employers face:
Fines up to ₹50,000 for non-compliance.
Cancellation of business license for repeated violations.
Possible criminal liability under IPC for abetment (Sections 109, 114 IPC).
⚙️ VI. Relevance to Industrial and Garment Sectors
The garment and industrial sectors are often female-dominated at the worker level but male-dominated in supervision.
Key risk areas:
Supervisors demanding sexual favors for promotions or shifts.
Verbal abuse and physical advances on factory floors.
Lack of awareness about complaint mechanisms.
Courts have repeatedly emphasized criminal accountability for such acts and the duty of employers to ensure a safe work environment.
🧩 VII. Conclusion
Criminal liability for workplace harassment in industrial and garment sectors is twofold:
Individual liability of the offender under IPC (Sections 354, 354A, 509).
Vicarious or statutory liability of the employer under the POSH Act for failing to prevent or redress harassment.
Courts have consistently recognized that workplace safety is a legal and constitutional right, and failure to uphold it invites criminal consequences.
RELATED Blog
comments