Bombay High Court says shared auto not ‘workplace’ under PoSH Act, sets aside ICC order

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a shared rickshaw used by an employee to commute to work does not constitute a ‘workplace’ within the meaning of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH), unless the transport is provided by the employer.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated June 22, set aside the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), which found the State Bank of India (SBI) employee guilty of sexual harassment for an incident that took place during travel.

The petitioner, an employee of SBI, was going to his office in a shared rickshaw on March 24, 2023. Defendant 3 was also a passenger in the vehicle. The petitioner stated that any physical contact with Respondent 3 was due to overcrowding in the vehicle. Defendant 3 commented that this contact was intentional and led to a fight. He pepper sprayed the applicant and called the police.

The police detained the petitioner and registered a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondent 3 also filed a complaint with the ICC under the PoSH Act.

The ICC found the petitioner guilty and recommended disciplinary action. The applicant appealed against this order. The court had previously directed that no final decision should be made on the appeal without its leave.

A Bench of Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla and Justice Suman Shyam examined whether the incident took place in a ‘premises’ under Section 2(o) of the PoSH Act. The court noted that the applicant went to his office. However, transportation was not provided by his employer or Defendant 3’s employer. The court further stated that such transport does not fall within the definition of ‘permanent business’ under Section 2(o)(v) of the POSH Act.

The court ruled that the alleged incident did not occur in a ‘workplace’. The court observed that if the alleged harassment did not occur ‘in the workplace’, the ICC could not entertain the complaint.

As a result, the ICC did not have jurisdiction to consider Respondent 3’s complaint. The court annulled the ICC’s decision, declaring it unsustainable.

The court explained that it did not make a determination as to whether the petitioner sexually harassed Respondent 3. This issue remains open to decision in appropriate proceedings.

The Board stated that the ICC must first determine whether an alleged incident occurred in a ‘premises’ within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the PoSH Act. Only a positive response will authorize the ICC to conduct further investigations.

The decision was delivered on June 16, 2026 in the case of Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute v. SBI (Writ Petition No. 1213 of 2024).