Vinod Narayan Kachave vs The Presiding Officer (ICC) & Another – POSH Case Law
This case serves as a significant example in understanding workplace dynamics and the implications of the Vinod Narayan Kachave POSH case.
Introduction
Key Insights from the Vinod Narayan Kachave POSH case
This case is about a workplace sexual harassment complaint under the POSH Act (Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace – Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal Act).
A female employee claimed that her male colleague made comments about her hair, saying: “You must be using JCB to manage your hair,” and even sang a song about it.
She also mentioned another inappropriate joke he made in front of other employees.
The company’s POSH Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) found him guilty.
He challenged the decision in court.
This judgment helps HR professionals understand how POSH investigations should be done properly and fairly in the case of
Vinod Narayan Kachave vs The Presiding Officer (ICC) & Another. WRIT PETITION NO. 17230 OF 2024
What Happened?
A female employee reported that her colleague made uncomfortable comments and inappropriate jokes in the workplace.
The company’s ICC investigated and concluded that he created a hostile environment for female staff.
The accused said he never meant harm and the comments were casual workplace jokes.
He went to court, saying the ICC report was vague and did not prove harassment.
Read: Harassment Under POSH: A Step-by-Step Case Study for HR Leaders.
Who Are the Parties?
Petitioner
Mr. Vinod Narayan Kachave
The employee accused of harassment who challenged the ICC decision.
Respondent No. 1
Internal Complaints Committee (ICC)
The committee formed under the POSH Act to investigate sexual harassment complaints.
Respondent No. 2
Employer / Company
The organization where both the complainant and the accused worked.
Complainant
The female employee who filed the POSH complaint.
Why They Fought
The complainant said the comments and jokes made her uncomfortable at work.
The accused said they were harmless and friendly conversation, not sexual in nature.
The ICC believed the complainant and found him guilty of harassment.
He argued that the ICC never explained how each allegation met the legal standards of sexual harassment.
Timeline of the Case (Chronology)
• Incidents occurred → Comments and jokes at workplace
The events happened during normal office interactions.
The accused made comments and jokes that the complainant later felt were inappropriate or uncomfortable.
• Complaint filed → Complainant approached ICC
The complainant formally reported the issue to the Internal Complaints Committee (POSH Committee).
This is the first official step in a POSH case.
• ICC investigation → Interviews and internal meetings
The ICC spoke to employees who were present and asked them what they saw or heard.
They held internal meetings to review statements and the overall situation.
• ICC report issued → Petitioner held guilty
After the investigation, the ICC concluded that the accused was responsible.
They stated that his actions had created an uncomfortable environment for female employees.
• Appeal to Industrial Court → Appeal dismissed
The accused challenged the ICC report in the Industrial Court, saying the findings were wrong.
The Industrial Court refused to accept his arguments and supported the ICC decision.
• Writ petition to High Court → Petitioner challenged decisions
The accused then went to the High Court because he believed both the ICC and Industrial Court had made serious mistakes.
He asked the High Court to review the investigation and the earlier decision.
• High Court judgment → ICC and Industrial Court orders set aside
The High Court reviewed all evidence carefully.
It cancelled both the ICC report and the Industrial Court decision, stating the case did not legally qualify as sexual harassment.
What the ICC and Company Did
The ICC interviewed colleagues and stated that “multiple witnesses confirmed the allegations.”
They concluded that the accused employee’s behavior was unprofessional and created an uncomfortable atmosphere for women.
The company treated the ICC findings as correct and accepted the report.
However, the ICC made major mistakes:
• It did not explain why each incident counted as sexual harassment.
• It mixed unrelated issues and different people.
• It used general statements instead of matching evidence to each allegation.
What the Court Checked
The High Court reviewed the facts and asked key questions:
1. Were the comments sexual in nature?
The hair comment (“JCB to manage your hair”) was rude or immature, but not sexual.
A joke to a male coworker was not directed at the complainant at all.
Important: Unprofessional behavior ≠ Sexual harassment automatically.
2. Did the complainant feel uncomfortable at the time?
After the alleged hair incident, both employees exchanged polite and positive messages.
This raised doubt about whether she actually felt harassed when it happened.
3. Did ICC include unrelated incidents?
One allegation was against a female manager, not the accused.
The ICC still included it in the final report.
This was a procedural flaw and created bias.
4. Did ICC evaluate each allegation separately?
The court said no.
The ICC bundled everything together and said “multiple witnesses confirmed.”
This is not legally sufficient.
The court emphasized:
• Allegation A → Evidence → Conclusion
• Allegation B → Evidence → Conclusion
• Allegation C → Evidence → Conclusion
Anything less is vague, unsafe, and invalid.
Final Decision
The High Court cancelled the ICC report and also cancelled the Industrial Court order.
It held that the incidents did not meet the legal definition of sexual harassment under the POSH Act.
The judgment was in favour of the petitioner.
HR Takeaways (Gold Section — Practical Points)
• A rude or silly comment is not automatically sexual harassment.
Sometimes people make immature, rude, or insensitive remarks without any sexual meaning.
Unless the comment is related to body, sex, gender, or has a sexual undertone, it does not qualify as sexual harassment under POSH.
• Harassment must be sexual in nature or effect.
The law requires either sexual intention or sexual impact on the complainant.
The victim must feel sexually uncomfortable, not just annoyed or irritated.
• ICC must evaluate each allegation separately.
Every complaint point should be matched with specific evidence and witness statements.
If there are three allegations, the committee must show proof for all three, instead of writing a general conclusion.
• Don’t mix unrelated incidents.
If a complaint contains different events with different people, they should be separated.
Combining everything creates confusion, bias, and weakens the investigation.
• Check if the complainant was actually uncomfortable at the time.
Sometimes the victim continues normal communication after the incident, which matters legally.
The ICC must check the immediate response and behaviour, not only what was said later.
• Take separate witness statements — not collective opinions.
Each witness should give their version individually, with date and details.
Group observations like “everyone agreed” are not considered valid evidence by courts.
• Avoid judgment based on “many people said yes.”
Numbers don’t prove guilt—evidence does.
ICC must show how each comment or act caused sexual discomfort, not just rely on majority opinion.
What HR Must Do to Prevent Such Issues Again
1. Training and Awareness
• Conduct POSH training every 6 months.
• Explain acceptable vs unacceptable workplace talk.
• Teach employees to respond politely: “Please don’t say that.”
2. Improve ICC Skills
• Train ICC to evaluate evidence accurately.
• Teach ICC to write clear, structured findings.
• Separate unprofessional behaviour from sexual harassment.
3. Documentation
• Record individual witness statements.
• Document date, time, exact words, and emotional impact.
• Preserve WhatsApp messages, emails, CCTV if available.
4. Complaint Handling
• If allegations involve multiple people → Separate complaints.
• If incidents are unrelated → Do not combine them.
• Never punish based on assumptions or rumours.
5. Workplace Culture
• Promote dignity and respect.
• Encourage early reporting.
• Protect both complainant and accused.
Read: POSH Act 2025 in India: A Comprehensive Guide for HR Managers.
Conclusion — What This Case Teaches Everyone Legally
The law is very clear:
Sexual harassment must show sexual conduct, sexual intention, or a sexual effect on the complainant.
It cannot be assumed from casual jokes, immature comments, or workplace interactions.
Courts look for:
• Whether the remarks are sexual in nature
• Whether they cause real discomfort to the complainant
• Whether the investigation is fair, unbiased, and well-reasoned
• Whether each allegation is supported by evidence
The message from this case is simple and powerful:
HR, ICC, and management must not treat every misunderstanding as sexual harassment.
But when a complaint is serious and sexual in nature — they must investigate it with clarity, dignity, and legal discipline.
This judgment is a reminder that:
• POSH must protect victims
• POSH must also protect innocent individuals from wrong findings
• Fair procedure is not optional — it is the backbone of justice