The Bombay High Court has set aside an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) order holding an SBI employee guilty of sexual harassment. The Court ruled that an incident in a shared public autorickshaw during daily commute does not qualify as occurring at a “workplace”.
Background & Facts of the Case
The petitioner, Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute, an SBI employee, was travelling from Kurla Railway Station to Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC) in a shared autorickshaw on 24 March 2023, as was his daily routine. Respondent No. 3 (a woman) was also a passenger in the same autorickshaw.
According to the petitioner, due to overcrowding on the back seat and bumpy roads, there may have been incidental contact with the woman’s bag. The woman alleged inappropriate touching, stopped the autorickshaw, abused him, used pepper spray, and later filed a complaint with her company’s ICC, which forwarded it to SBI’s ICC (Respondent No. 2).
SBI’s ICC conducted an enquiry and, vide order dated 29 August 2023, found the petitioner guilty of sexual harassment and recommended departmental action. The petitioner challenged this order before the Bombay High Court.
Key Legal Issue
Whether an Internal Complaints Committee has jurisdiction under the POSH Act to entertain a complaint of sexual harassment arising in a shared public transport (autorickshaw) used by an employee for commuting to the office.
Arguments
Petitioner’s Counsel (Adv. Anand Pande): The alleged incident occurred in public shared transport, not in employer-provided transportation. The definition of “workplace” under Section 2(o) of the POSH Act does not cover such situations. Hence, the ICC lacked jurisdiction.
Respondents’ Counsel (Adv. Abhijit Joshi): The ICC had jurisdiction, and the interpretation of “workplace” was correct. The matter could be enquired into, and the incident fell within the broad ambit during the course of employment.
Bombay High Court’s Ruling
A Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Justices Suman Shyam and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla allowed the writ petition and quashed the ICC order dated 29 August 2023.
The Court held:
- Under Section 2(o)(v) of the POSH Act, “workplace” includes any place visited by the employee arising out of or during the course of employment, including transportation provided by the employer.
- The shared autorickshaw was public transport, not provided by the employer (SBI or the complainant’s employer). Therefore, the incident did not occur at a “workplace”.
- The ICC had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or pass the impugned order.
- The Court clarified that it has not gone into the merits of the allegations, which remain open for appropriate proceedings.
The writ petition was allowed, and the ICC order was set aside.
Key Takeaways
- The definition of “workplace” under the POSH Act is not unlimited. Transportation must be provided by the employer to fall within its ambit.
- Incidents in ordinary public transport (buses, trains, shared taxis/autorickshaws) during commute generally do not qualify as occurring at a workplace for POSH purposes.
- Internal Committees must first satisfy themselves of jurisdiction (i.e., whether the incident occurred at a workplace) before proceeding with a full enquiry.
- This judgment provides important clarity on the territorial and situational limits of the POSH Act in commuting-related complaints.
Case Details
Case Name: Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute v. State Bank of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 BHC (OS) 13187-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1213 of 2024
Coram: Hon’ble Justices Suman Shyam and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla
Court: Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
Date of Judgment: 16 June 2026
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 