Whether the Limitation Act, 1963, would apply to appeals under Section 18 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

“The Hon’ble High Court of New Delhi held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply in respect of appeals which may be sought to be preferred under Section 18 of the SHW Act of 2013”.

Facts:

In the case at hand Respondent no. 1 accused Respondent no. 2 of harassing her. The matter went before the ICC and Respondent no. 2 was exonerated vide report of the committee. Respondent 1 appealed to the Industrial tribunal, against the ICCs recommendation, under section 18 of the act. The industrial tribunal further condones the delay of 36 days in filing the appeal. Aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The contention of the petitioner is that no provision for condonation of delay is to be found in Section 18 of the Act, and clause (2) uses the words “appeal shall be preferred within 90 days of the recommendation”, therefore the tribunal could not have condoned the delay in filing of appeal by the respondent.

The tribunal was of the view that the woman might have suffered sexual harassments and may not be in a position for a certain time due to sexual harassment, to raise her grievance within a specific period. The Tribunal has to consider various obstacles which might have been there for the applicant to prefer and to file the present appeal. Also the appellant’s complaint stated obstacles like unprecedented family circumstances, including medical circumstances, which have been mentioned in detail in the application. The tribunal thinks it is in the interest of justice that a delay of 36 days be condoned.

As per the petitioner a look at Hongo’s case reflect that unlike the Central Excise Act, which specifically contemplated and provided for condonation of delay under other provisions, but did not so provide in Section 35-H, there is no provision at all in the SHW Act, providing for condonation of delay. In such circumstances, Hongo India3 cannot be treated as an authority which proscribes recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, where there is delay in preferring in appeal under Section 18 of the SHW Act.

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi is entirely in agreement with the observations of the learned IT, in this regard, that a victim of sexual harassment remains in a state of trauma and it cannot be expected that she would immediately rush to a Court seeking appellate remedies. It would be completely antithetical and inimical to the very scope and purpose of the SHW Act, if a Court were to refuse to condone a delay of as little as 36 days in an alleged victim of sexual harassment preferring an appeal under Section 18 against the report of the inquiry committee.