Punjab and Haryana HC notice to Adidas India on sexual harassment plea: the Tribune India



Saurabh Malik

Tribune press service

Chandigarh, September 21

Reportedly the victim of sexual harassment in the workplace, an “internal lawyer” took the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against his former employer, Adidas India Marketing Pvt Ltd, challenging the decision of a single judge of cancel for technical reasons a procedure before an internal committee on his complaint.

Order challenged on 22 grounds

Resuming a plea challenging the judgment on no less than 22 grounds, Division Judge Augustine George Masih and Judge Meenakshi I Mehta on Monday issued a notice of motion to Adidas and other defendants, including Haryana State.

Resuming his appeal challenging the judgment on no less than 22 grounds, Division Judge Augustine George Masih and Judge Meenakshi I Mehta today issued a Notice of Motion to Adidas and other respondents, including the State of ‘Haryana. The Chamber has also set January 20 for the continuation of the hearing in the case.

Senior Counsel Meet Malhotra with Counsel Ritesh Aggarwal and Pallak Singh appeared before the bench on behalf of the appellant. The judiciary learned that the appellant had joined the organization as a “director-legal counsel”, an empty letter of appointment dated November 16, 2017, but that she was allegedly sexually harassed by a respondent-supervisor until November next year.

It was alleged that she had raised the issue of sexual harassment with management, but no response was received. In January 2019, she was threatened and forced to resign before being asked to leave within three to four hours. She was not allowed to give 30 days’ notice and was not compensated in accordance with the employment agreement.

Later that month, the company’s “compliance officer” approached her about the charges and assured her of a fair and independent investigation. But “she was not included in any way in the alleged internal investigation.” Despite repeated requests, the “compliance officer” did not provide details on his internal committee.

The judiciary was informed in March 2019 that the appellant had been informed that the internal investigation was completed, but the official refused to provide the copy of the report. A counter-investigation was conducted into the alleged unwarranted refund claims, but the official did not provide details on the source of the documents.

In June 2019, she received a “threatening and intimidating” letter about the full and final settlement. Having received no response to her follow-up emails, she filed a complaint on “She-Box”. She was called for a hearing before the respondent’s local committee, District Gurugram, after which the respondents approached the HC.

It was added that the single judge allowed the request and quashed the proceedings before the internal committee on his complaint of sexual harassment, forcing him to relocate the HC. “The single judge limited his decision to a single issue, namely limitation. By adopting this rather limited approach, the Single Judge then dismissed various allegations of considerable legal importance raised before him, ”the petition states, adding that the defense of limitation or“ cowardice ”may not find relevance in a complaint. for persistent sexual harassment for a period of time.



Leave A Reply