-1-

NC: 2024:KHC:44365
WP No. 28361 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

®
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 28361 OF 2024 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI NAGARAJ G K
S/O KARIBASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.309, NASUKU NILAYA,
5TH MAIN ROAD, BEML LAYOUT,
BASAVESHWARNAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 079.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA HEGDE., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE HON'BLE ADDL. LABOUR COMMISSIONER

Digitally signed
by VIJAYA P APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER POSH ACT, 2013,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF DIARY CIRCLE,
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 029.

2. SMT. SAHANA SHEKHAR,

(D/O. NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER)
AGE: MAJOR.
ADDRESS: JOHN HOPKINS UNIVERSITY,
U.S.A. - 21218

3. SMT. HEMAVATHI M.N,

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND PRESIDING OFFICER,
 -2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44365
WP No. 28361 of 2024

INTERNAL COMMITTEE
KARNATAKA HEALTH PROMOTION TRUST.

4. SMT. PRATHIBHA RAI.B,

THE MEMBER OF THE INTERNAL COMMITTEE,
KARNATAKA HEALTH PROMOTION TRUST.

5. SRI. BISUJAKSHA V.S,

THE MEMBER OF THE INTERNAL COMMITTEE,
KARNATAKA HEALTH PROMOTION TRUST.

6. SMT. SOWMYALAKSHMI BHAT,

THE EXTERNAL MEMBER OF THE
INTERNAL COMMITTEE,
KARNATAKA HEALTH PROMOTION TRUST.

7. SRI MOHAN.H.L,
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
KARNATAKA HEALTH PROMOTION TRUST.

OFFICE ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENTS

I.T.PARK, 5TH FLOOR, 1-4,
RAJAJINAGAR INDUSTRIAL AREA,
BEHIND KSSIDC ADMIN OFFICE,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 044.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA FOR R1)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED FINAL ENQUIRY REPORT/ RECOMMENDATION DTD.
25.09.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE INTERNAL COMMITTEE/R-3 TO
6 IN NO.KHPT/IC/02/2024 AND THE ORDER DTD. 06.10.2024
PASSED BY THE R-7 IN NO. KHP/HR/TR/2024-25/E1124 AND
 -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:44365
WP No. 28361 of 2024

THE ORDER DTD. 08.10.2024 PASSED BY THE R-3 WHICH IS

PRODUCED ANNEXURE-A, B, AND C RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,

THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner has called in question the correctness of

Annexure-A which is a final report of the internal

committee against Sexual Harassment of Women at

Workplace and has also challenged the order of transfer

from Bangalore to Koppal office at Annexure-B stated to

have been made pursuant to the recommendation of the

Committee.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was

appointed as a Finance Officer on contract basis and

during the course of his employment, the 2nd respondent

lodged a complaint against him of sexual harassment at

work place, which according to him is a false complaint. It

is further submitted that petitioner had filed his detailed

reply to the complaint of the 2nd respondent. It is

 -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:44365
WP No. 28361 of 2024

submitted that the internal committee has made out its

recommendation by way of final report at Annexure-A and

the employer has passed an order of transfer at Annexure-

B. The petitioner submits that in the appeal filed before

the Appellate Authority, an application for stay is filed and

till date, no orders are passed and the Authority has

merely issued notice in the appeal without considering

granting an interim order of the impugned proceedings

which has caused irreparable loss and injury to the

petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that in terms of the provisions under Section 18 of the

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,

Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act')

and under Rule 11 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at

Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules,

2013 (for short 'the Rules') the appellate authority has no

power to consider the application for stay. Accordingly, it

 -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:44365
WP No. 28361 of 2024

is submitted that the petitioner having no remedy has

approached this Court invoking writ jurisdiction.

4. Issuance of notice to respondent No.2 has been

dispensed with as the Court does not intend to enter into

the correctness of the order at Annexures-A and B in light

of the appeal already having been preferred under Section

18 of the Act before the appellate authority. However, the

contention of the petitioner raised in the form of legal

grievance is that, once the appeal is filed, unless the

application for stay is considered by the authority, cases

where genuine grievance are raised would remain

unaddressed till the appeal is decided which may take time

with no relief in the interregnum.

5. Section 18 of the Act reads as follows:

"18. Appeal.- (1) Any person aggrieved from the

recommendations made under sub-section (2) of
section 13 or under clause (i) or clause (ii) of sub-
section (3) of section 13 or sub-section (1) or
subsection (2) of section 14 or section 17 or non-
implementation of such recommendations may
 -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:44365
WP No. 28361 of 2024

prefer an appeal to the court or tribunal in

accordance with the provisions of the service rules
applicable to the said person or where no such
service rules exist then, without prejudice to
provisions contained in any other law for the time
being in force, the person aggrieved may prefer an
appeal in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2) The appeal under sub-section (1) shall be

preferred within a period of ninety days of the
recommendations."

6. Rule 11 of the Rules, 2013 reads as follows:

"11. Appeal.- Subject to the provisions of

section 18, any person aggrieved from the
recommendations made under sub-section (2) of
section 13 or under clauses (i) or clause (ii) of
sub-section (3) of section 13 or sub-section (1) or
sub-section (2) of section 14 or section 17 or
non-implementation of such recommendations
may prefer an appeal to the appellate authority
notified under clause (a) of section 2 of the
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,
1946 (20 of 1946)."

7. The provision under the Act and the Rules does

not contain any stipulation regarding granting of interim

 -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:44365
WP No. 28361 of 2024

relief. It must be noticed however that the Act does not

expressly prohibit the appellate authority to pass an

interim order and once the appellate authority has the

power to set aside impugned proceedings, it can be

construed that the appellate authority also has implied

power to consider passing of interim order of stay as well.

This is the consistent position taken by this Court in the

case of Chikkathimmegowda vs. Deputy

Commissioner1, following the judgment of the Apex

Court.

8. No doubt the Court cannot exercise its inherent

power in conflict with what has been specifically provided

under the Statute. When there is no such bar in regard to

grant of interim relief under the statute, such power to

grant interim relief could be considered.

9. The Bench of 3 Judges of the Apex Court in the

case of Income Tax Officer, Cannanore vs. M. K.

1
ILR 1991 KAR 3238
 -8-
NC: 2024:KHC:44365
WP No. 28361 of 2024

Mohammed Kunhi2, while dealing with the powers of

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 254 and 255

of Income Tax Act, 1961 in which provision at the relevant

point of time, there was no specific power available to the

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to grant stay against the

demand of tax, has held that such power to grant stay was

inherent and was capable of being read into the powers of

deciding the appeal itself. The relevant extracts are as

follows:

"6. …. It is a firmly established rule that an

express grant of statutory power carries with it by
necessary implication the authority to use all
reasonable means to make such grant effective
(Sutherland Statutory Construction, 3rd Edn.,
Articles 5401 and 5402). The powers which have
been conferred by Section 254 on the Appellate
Tribunal with widest possible amplitude must
carry with them by necessary implication all
powers and duties incidental and necessary to
make the exercise of those powers fully effective.
In Domat's Civil Law Cushing's Edn., Vol. 1 at p.
88, it has been stated:

2
1968 SCC Online SC 71
 -9-
NC: 2024:KHC:44365
WP No. 28361 of 2024

It is the duty of the Judges to apply the

laws, not only to what appears to be
regulated by their express dispositions, but
to all the cases where a just application of
them may be made, and which appear to be
comprehended either within the
consequences that may be gathered from
it.”

7.Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 11th

Edn., contains a statement at p. 350 that “where
an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also
grants the power of doing all such acts, or
employing such means, as are essentially
necessary to its execution. Cui jurisdictio data
est, ea quoqe concessa esse videntur, sine quibus
jurisdictio explicari non potuit”. An instance is
given based on Ex parte Martin [(1879) 4 QBD
212, 491] that “where an inferior court is
empowered to grant an injunction, the power of
punishing disobedience to it by commitment is
impliedly conveyed by the enactment, for the
power would be useless if it could not be
enforced”.

10. Further, the principle is that every Court must

be deemed to possess by necessary intendment all such

powers as are necessary to make its orders effective. This

principle is embodied in the maxim "ubi aliquid conceditur,

 - 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44365
WP No. 28361 of 2024

conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest" which

principle has been applied by the Apex Court in the case

of Smt. Savitri vs. Sri. Govind Singh Rawat 3, while

allowing consideration of interim order in an application

filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate.

The Apex Court has held as follows:

"6. ……Whenever anything is required to be done

by law and it is found impossible to do that thing
unless something not authorised in express terms
be also done then that something else will be
supplied by necessary intendment….."

11. Accordingly, it is to be held that the appellate

authority despite the absence of specific provision for

granting of interim order would have the power to consider

the interim application.

12. In light of the above, without entering into the

correctness of the orders impugned, the writ petition is

disposed off, observing that the appellate authority has

the power to consider the application of the petitioner for

3
AIR 1986 SC 984
 - 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44365
WP No. 28361 of 2024

stay, as may be appropriate upon the merits of the

matter. The appeal memo at Annexure-K and the

application for interim relief is also enclosed along with the

appeal. In light of the same, the appellate authority to

consider the request of the petitioner as is permissible

under law in light of the observations made above. Such

consideration of the interim relief must be made within an

outer limit of two weeks from the date of receipt of

certified copy of this order by the appellate authority. The

appellate authority to endeavour to dispose off the appeal

expeditiously. All contentions are kept open.

13. Accordingly, petition is disposed off.

Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE

VP