Sunidhi is Assistant General Manager, heading the Forex Division of Best Bank Ltd., at Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai. In this Forex Division of the Bank, under the official hierarchy of Sunidhi, 10 other employees are als

Section 2(o) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 defines the 'workplace' as under: any department, organisation, undertaking, establishment, enterprise, institution, office, branch or unit which is established, owned, controlled or wholly or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the appropriate Government or the local authority or a Government company or a corporation or a co-operative society; any private sector organisation or a private venture, undertaking, enterprise, institution, establishment, society, trust, non-governmental organisation, unit or service provider carrying on commercial, professional, vocational, educational, entertainment, industrial, health services or financial activities including production, supply, sale, distribution or service; hospitals or nursing homes; any sports institute, stadium, sports complex or competition or games venue, whether residential or not used for training, sports or other activities relating thereto; any place visited by the employee arising out of or during the course of employment including transportation by the employer for undertaking such journey; a dwelling place or a house; Hence, if harassment takes place even during transportation or during a lunch meeting at a restaurant, the same will be covered under the Act. In the case of Saurabh Kumar Mallick v. Comptroller & Auditor General of India, WP(C) No. 8649/2007 , the Delhi Court observed that 'the aim and objective of formulating the Vishaka 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 working woman is residing; and 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 the definition of 'workplace'. Applying this, the Lounge (meant for lunch place for the staff) within the bank premises, where employees take lunch during working hours, clearly falls within the definition of 'workplace' under the Act. The incident occurred during the course of employment and within the extended premises controlled by the employer. Therefore, Sunidhi's complaint to the ICC is valid.