Quick answer: If a POSH complaint is against the employer, its Internal Committee does not hear it. Section 6(1) of the POSH Act sends complaints “against the employer himself” to the Local Committee set up by the District Officer. It must still be filed within 3 months of the incident or last incident, extendable by up to 3 months for recorded reasons (s.9(1)), and the inquiry must finish within 90 days (s.11(4)).
By Manas Editorial Team
Most POSH policies mention the Local Committee in one line. That line matters most when the person complained against is the owner, managing director or head of the organisation.
Who counts as the “employer” under the POSH Act?
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (Act No. 14 of 2013) does not use the words “owner” or “director”. It defines “employer” in section 2(g) by role, including:
- s.2(g)(i): in bodies of the appropriate Government or a local authority, the head of the department, organisation, office, branch or unit, or an officer the government or local authority specifies.
- s.2(g)(ii): for any other workplace, “any person responsible for the management, supervision and control of the workplace”. The Explanation says “management” includes the person, board or committee responsible for framing and administering the organisation’s policies.
- s.2(g)(iii): the person discharging contractual obligations with respect to his or her employees.
A sole proprietor who runs the business appears, on the text, to fit s.2(g)(ii). For a company, the Act does not say whether each individual director is the “employer”. The text points to whoever actually manages, supervises and controls the workplace, and the Explanation brings a board within “management”. Whether a particular director, managing director or CEO fits depends on his or her role.
The Delhi High Court took this approach in W.P.(C) 1103/2020 (Justice Sanjeev Narula, 28 August 2025), a complaint against the Secretary of a government-funded academy. It said “the focus must be on the functional role of the individual concerned” (para 93), held the Secretary to be the “employer” under s.2(g) (para 106), primarily under s.2(g)(i), the clause for government bodies (para 97), held that the Local Committee “had jurisdiction” (para 97), and declared the internal committee’s report “without jurisdiction and non est” (para 111(a)). The judgment concerned a body receiving full financial support from the government (para 88) and did not discuss private companies, so it is not a ruling on who the employer is inside a private company.
Why can’t the Internal Committee hear it, and who does?
Under s.4(1), every employer constitutes the Internal Committee “by an order in writing”, and under s.4(2) its members are “nominated by the employer”. A committee chosen by the person complained against would be judging its own appointing authority. Section 6(1) avoids that: the Local Committee receives complaints from workplaces with no Internal Committee because there are fewer than 10 workers, “or if the complaint is against the employer himself.”
The District Officer, notified under s.5 (a District Magistrate, Additional District Magistrate, Collector or Deputy Collector), constitutes the Local Committee. Under s.6(2), nodal officers in every block, taluka, tehsil, ward and municipality forward complaints to it within 7 days. Under s.7(1), it has a Chairperson from eminent women in social work, a woman member working in the district, two members from organisations committed to the cause of women (at least one a woman) and, ex officio, the district officer dealing with social welfare or women and child development. Members serve for not more than 3 years (s.7(2)).
How do the inquiry, interim relief, report and appeal work in this case?
The steps are the same as for any complaint; only the committee changes. Sections 11 to 14 speak of “the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be”.
| Step | Section | Time limit or duty |
|---|---|---|
| Written complaint | s.9(1) | Within 3 months of the incident or last incident; extendable by up to 3 months for reasons recorded in writing |
| Nodal officer forwards complaint | s.6(2) | Within 7 days |
| Inquiry | s.11(3), s.11(4) | Civil-court powers; complete within 90 days |
| Interim relief | s.12(1), s.12(3) | On her written request: transfer of either party or leave up to 3 months; the employer implements it |
| Report of findings | s.13(1) | Within 10 days of completing the inquiry, to the employer or, as the case may be, the District Officer |
| Action on recommendations | s.13(4) | The employer or the District Officer acts within 60 days of receipt |
| Appeal | s.18(1), s.18(2) | Within 90 days of the recommendations |
Note the wording of s.13: the report goes to “the employer, or as the case may be, the District Officer”. The Act does not spell out further which of the two receives it when the employer is the respondent.
The Local Committee route is real. In W.P. No. 22317 of 2017, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore (single judge, 16 September 2019) dealt with a complaint the Local Committee took up after finding no Internal Committee at a hospital. The Court held the complainant entitled to compensation of ₹25 lakh and directed the hospital company to pay a penalty of ₹50,000 under s.26 for the non-existence of an Internal Committee.
What should the complainant and the board do?
For the complainant:
- Write the complaint, keep a dated copy, and note dates, messages and witnesses.
- File within 3 months of the incident or the last of a series (s.9(1)), with the district’s Local Committee, directly or through the nodal officer (s.6(2)).
- If you need protection during the inquiry, ask in writing for interim relief under s.12(1).
For the other directors: under s.19, the employer must provide facilities to the Local Committee, help secure the attendance of the respondent and witnesses, and give it the information it requires. Under s.12(3), the employer implements interim recommendations. Under s.16, the complaint and the identities of the parties must not be made public. Do not route the complaint to the Internal Committee or run a parallel inquiry. Failing to act under s.13 or contravening the Act can attract a fine of up to ₹50,000 (s.26(1)); a repeat conviction can bring twice the punishment and cancellation, withdrawal or non-renewal of a licence or registration (s.26(2)).
What should a well-run company’s POSH policy say?
Good practice, not extra legal requirements:
- A clause that complaints against the employer go to the Local Committee under s.6(1), naming the district and the District Officer’s office.
- The roles your organisation treats as falling within s.2(g), such as proprietor, partners, managing director or CEO.
- A rule that the Internal Committee guides such complainants to the Local Committee instead of inquiring itself.
- A named board member or committee, unconnected with the respondent, to implement s.12 recommendations and act within the 60 days of s.13(4) where the report comes to the company.
- Recusal: a director who is the respondent stays out of every decision on the case.
Frequently asked questions
If the managing director is the “employer” under s.2(g), no. Section 6(1) sends complaints against the employer himself to the Local Committee. In 2025 the Delhi High Court declared an internal committee report on a complaint against the employer “non est” (W.P.(C) 1103/2020, para 111(a)).
The Act does not say so in terms. Section 2(g)(ii) covers any person responsible for management, supervision and control of the workplace, and “management” includes a board. Whether one director fits depends on his or her actual role; the Act’s text does not settle every case.
The same as any POSH complaint: in writing within 3 months of the incident or the last incident in a series. The Local Committee can extend this by up to 3 months, for reasons recorded in writing, if circumstances prevented an earlier complaint (s.9(1)).
The District Officer of the district (s.6(1)). The District Officer is notified by the appropriate government and may be a District Magistrate, Additional District Magistrate, Collector or Deputy Collector (s.5).
On the woman’s written request during the inquiry, the committee may recommend to the employer a transfer of her or the respondent, leave of up to 3 months, or other prescribed relief (s.12(1)). Under s.12(3), the employer must implement these recommendations and send a report of the implementation to the committee.
Yes. Section 18(1) allows any person aggrieved by recommendations under s.13(2), s.13(3), s.14 or s.17, or by their non-implementation, to appeal to the court or tribunal under the service rules, or as prescribed. The appeal must be filed within 90 days of the recommendations (s.18(2)).
Is your POSH policy ready for a complaint against the top?
Check whether your policy names the Local Committee route and who in your organisation counts as the employer. Our POSH compliance page explains the Internal Committee and External Member role; Dr. Priya Dubey Sharma, Founder & Consulting Psychologist, serves as an External Member. Take the free POSH check to see whether your committee is valid, or read our POSH FAQ for employers.
Sources
- The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, full text (Indian Kanoon)
- Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 1103/2020, judgment of 28 August 2025 (Indian Kanoon)
- Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore), W.P. No. 22317 of 2017, order of 16 September 2019 (Indian Kanoon)
Plain-language guides to POSH compliance for Indian employers, based on the Act, the Rules and court rulings. POSH compliance at Manas Center is led by Dr. Priya Dubey Sharma, Founder & Consulting Psychologist, as External Member.
