X was facing a departmental enquiry for allegedly indulging in sexual harassment of his senior woman officer. He contended that as the alleged misconduct took place not at the workplace but in the guesthouse of company w

In the case of Saurabh Kumar Mallick v. Comptroller & Auditor General of India, WP (C) No.8649/2007, the respondent who was facing departmental inquiry for allegedly indulging in sexual harassment of his senior woman officer contended that he could not be accused of sexual harassment at workplace as the alleged misconduct took place not at the workplace but at an official mess where the woman officer was residing. It was also argued that the complainant was even senior to the respondent and therefore no 'favour' could be extracted by the respondent from the complainant and thus the alleged act would not constitute 'sexual harassment'. The Delhi High Court while considering this matter held this as 'clearly misconceived'. The Delhi High Court observed that the aim and objective of formulating the Vishakha Guidelines was obvious in order to ensure that sexual harassment of working women is prevented and any person guilty of such an act is dealt with sternly. Keeping in view the objective behind the judgment, a narrow and pedantic approach cannot be taken in defining the term 'workplace' by confining the meaning to the commonly understood expression "office". It is imperative to take into consideration the recent trend which has emerged with the advent of computer and internet technology and advancement of information technology. A person can interact or do business conference with another person while sitting in some other country by way of videoconferencing. It has also become a trend that the office is being run by CEOs from their residence. In a case like this, if such an officer indulges in an act of sexual harassment with an employee, say, his private secretary, it would not be open for him to say that he had not committed the act at 'workplace' but at his Residence' and get away with the same. Noting the above, the High Court observed that the following factors would have bearing on determining whether the act has occurred in the 'workplace': Proximity from the place of work Control of the management over such a place/residence where the workingwoman is residing Such a residence has to be an extension or contiguous part of the working place. In conclusion, the Delhi High Court held that the official mess where the employee was alleged to have been sexually harassed definitely falls under 'workplace'. In view of the above provisions and case law, the contention of A is invalid.