In the recent case of R Mohanakrishnan v Deputy Inspector General of Police, the Madras High Court (“Madras HC”) observed that serious allegations such as continuous molestation and harassment are continuing misconduct and that every day, until the situation is redressed or brought to the notice of the appropriate authority, would give rise to a fresh cause of action.
Relying on precedents laid down by the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”), Madras HC further observed that in assessing periods of limitation under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”), courts should not get swayed by discrepancies and hyper-technicalities, and the overall fairness of the enquiry should be considered regarding any procedural violation which is complained of, and the purpose of limitation in Section 9 of the POSH Act has to be understood in this context.
Please click here to read the full article by Gerald Manoharan and Sonakshi Das, published in Bar and Bench.
Gerald (Jerry) has over 20 years of experience as a corporate commercial lawyer and has worked with several clients on diverse matters, including investments, corporate advisory, restructuring, mergers and acquisitions, contracting, dispute advisory and real estate.