Why managers become the first point of contact in harassment cases

In case of any issues, employees go to the person they see every day, the one who signs their leave requests and knows their workload, because that relationship already carries a baseline of trust. This makes the manager the de facto first responder in almost every sexual harassment situation, long before the Internal Committee is even informed.

The problem is that most managers are trained to run projects and manage performance, not to handle a disclosure of harassment with the legal and emotional precision it demands. A manager who reacts poorly in that first conversation, by minimising the issue, asking the employee to let it go, or trying to mediate the matter personally, can shut down the reporting process before it has even started. Sensitivity in that first exchange is of utmost importance in POSH cases. It is the mechanism that determines whether the case ever reaches the people equipped to handle it.

Where managerial missteps turn complaints into legal and reputational risk

The gap between what managers are supposed to do and what actually happens on the ground has real, documented consequences. In the 2026 TCS Nashik case, multiple women employees filed FIRs alleging sustained sexual harassment at the company’s BPO facility, and a Special Investigation Team eventually arrested seven employees, including team leaders and an Assistant General Manager, with the AGM specifically arrested for allegedly ignoring a verbal complaint and failing to trigger the mandatory POSH process. That single detail, a verbal complaint that never got logged, captures where the system usually breaks. It is rarely the law that fails. It is the manager standing between the employee and the process.

Rising complaint numbers are not necessarily bad news since they often reflect growing awareness, but a growing backlog of unresolved cases points to a system that is not moving fast enough once a complaint is raised, and managers who delay or dilute a complaint at the first stage are a direct contributor to that backlog. Separately, industry estimates suggest that less than 10 per cent of harassment cases in Indian workplaces are actually reported, which means the handful of complaints companies do see are already the ones that survived a manager’s initial reaction.

What managers should stop assuming about harassment complaints

A few assumptions show up repeatedly in cases that go wrong. Managers often assume they can resolve the matter informally between the two employees, without realising that any attempt at conciliation outside the Internal Committee’s process can itself become a procedural violation.

Many assume that if there was no physical contact, the conduct probably does not qualify as sexual harassment, when repeated comments, unwanted messages, or a pattern of inappropriate behaviour can meet the legal threshold just as much as a single serious incident.

Some managers assume the employee’s calm demeanour while reporting means the incident was not severe, when composure during disclosure has no bearing on how distressing the experience was. And a fair number assume that because the alleged harasser is a high performer or a long-serving colleague, the complaint deserves a longer, quieter look before anyone else is informed.

None of these is decisions a manager is authorised to make. Managing that instinct to intervene personally is as important as the reporting itself.

What managers need to do once a complaint reaches them

The correct response is narrower and more disciplined than most managers expect. The moment an employee brings up anything resembling sexual harassment, the manager’s job is to listen without judgment, avoid asking for graphic detail, assure the employee that the matter will be taken seriously, and direct them to the Internal Committee immediately.

Organisations that have reduced repeat incidents tend to share a common pattern: managers are trained specifically on early warning signs, given a clear one-page escalation protocol they can follow under pressure, and held accountable if a known incident was not escalated in time, exactly as happened in the TCS case.

Confidentiality has to be treated as non-negotiable at the manager’s level too, since informal information leaks about a pending complaint can cause as much damage as the original incident. Regular refresher training, not a one-time onboarding session, is what keeps this behaviour consistent once the initial urgency fades.

Building manager readiness as a compliance priority for sexual harassment cases

For most companies, the cost of a mishandled complaint is more than an uncomfortable HR meeting; it has reputational and financial risks as well. With board-level disclosure requirements now in place and regulators actively scrutinising how quickly complaints move from a verbal mention to a formal inquiry, a manager’s ability to respond correctly in that first conversation has become a measurable business risk.

Training managers to recognise, respond, and redirect, without trying to solve the problem themselves, is one of the most cost-effective investments a company can make in its POSH framework. It protects employees, but it also protects the organisation from the kind of failure that starts as a single ignored complaint and ends up as a headline.

The post Managers at the frontline of preventing sexual harassment first appeared on Metis POSH Consulting Service LLP.

Every June, companies put out rainbow logos and organise panel discussions. A few amend their DEI policy statements. But most stop well short of addressing what the data makes difficult to ignore: LGBTQIA+ employees in India face documented, persistent, and often legally unaddressed harassment at work, while the current interpretation of the POSH Act leaves them largely without recourse. The myths that follow continue to shape how internal committees, HR teams, and managers respond to complaints from LGBTQIA+ employees, and why those responses so often fall short.

Myth 1: If There are No Formal Complaints, There is No Problem

Internal committees and HR teams often gauge workplace culture by complaint volumes. Low numbers feel reassuring. For LGBTQIA+ employees, low reporting rates have almost nothing to do with low incidence.

According to a 2019 survey by the International Journal of Community Health, 70% of LGBTQIA+ individuals report experiencing sexual harassment at the workplace. Against that, data from the National Crime Records Bureau (collected after the 2018 Section 377 decriminalisation) found that 64.6% of sexual harassment cases involving LGBTQIA+ persons go unregistered. Findings by the Humsafar Trust document 52 independent instances of LGBTQIA+ persons facing harassment and discrimination in workplace settings, noting that none of these individuals sought or could seek legal recourse.

The gap between experience and reporting is driven by identifiable fears: being outed in the process of filing a complaint, facing a committee with no training or mandate to handle identity-based harassment, and an outcome that leaves the complainant more exposed than before. The absence of complaints, in this context, is not evidence of a safe workplace.

Myth 2: POSH Training Has Already Addressed This

Most POSH training programmes in India operate within a heteronormative framework — a woman employee, a male perpetrator, a defined escalation path. The Act was designed around that scenario, and the training that follows leaves IC members unprepared for the complexity of identity-based harassment.

A 2022 study by Randstad India found that 53% of Indian companies do not have career-development opportunities for LGBTQIA+ employees, and only 9.5% of surveyed organisations had made significant efforts toward inclusion. A November 2023 survey by Walchand Plus found that 53% of HR professionals do not adequately understand the POSH Act even in its existing form. When foundational POSH literacy is weak, extending that knowledge to cover LGBTQIA+-specific scenarios becomes correspondingly remote. IC members end up uncertain how to categorise a complaint, or they default to dismissing it because it falls outside the statutory framework they were trained on.

Myth 3: Harassment Against LGBTQIA+ Employees Looks Different From Other Workplace Harassment

Harassment of LGBTQIA+ employees takes the same forms as other workplace harassment — hostile behaviour, exclusion, power-based coercion — but compounded by identity-specific elements: deliberate misgendering, outing someone without consent, jokes premised on sexual orientation, or using informal networks to isolate a person. A Glassdoor survey found that 55% of LGBTQIA+ employees in India have experienced or witnessed anti-LGBTQIA+ comments by co-workers. These constitute a pattern of targeted behaviour that any functioning workplace framework would treat as harassment.

The operative implication for internal committees is that the absence of a statutory provision does not erase the organisational obligation. A growing number of companies are treating LGBTQIA+ harassment complaints under broader anti-discrimination and workplace conduct policies, rather than waiting for the law to catch up. This is both the more defensible and the more principled position.

Myth 4: A DEI Policy Covers the Gap

The gap between policy and practice in India’s corporate sector is substantial. Research indicates that even when LGBTQIA+ inclusion policies exist, implementation is often low — with HR personnel sometimes showing reluctance to resolve issues that fall outside conventional POSH structures. A 2021 survey found that 16 out of 17 LGBTQIA+ respondents who were open about their identity experienced workplace discrimination: denied opportunities, substandard appraisals, and blocked promotions.

A DEI statement does not constitute a safe reporting environment. Instead, organisations require trained IC members who understand identity-based harassment, a complaints mechanism that does not require a complainant to out themselves in order to seek redressal, and leadership that has communicated that LGBTQIA+ employees will be taken seriously as a matter of organisational policy.

Where Organisations Need to Move

The legal framework has gaps that organisations cannot wait out. Several steps sit within reach of any HR team or IC:

• Expand the internal policy scope for POSH. A broader Anti-Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy that explicitly covers LGBTQIA+ employees creates a parallel redressal pathway independent of the statutory definition of “aggrieved woman.”
• Train IC members on identity-based harassment. Training should include scenarios involving gender identity, sexual orientation, and the specific dynamics of reporting when identity disclosure carries risk.
• Build confidential reporting mechanisms. Anonymous or confidential escalation channels, which are managed outside the standard IC process where needed, address the single most significant barrier to reporting.
• Brief managers explicitly. Comments about gender identity, sexual orientation, or relationship status constitute harassment regardless of intent. Most managers in India have never been told this in a formal setting.
• Audit inclusion provisions annually. As case law and community expectations evolve, LGBTQIA+ provisions left static from the year they were first added become both inadequate and indefensible.

The Business Implications

41% of workers globally say they would not accept a job from an employer not actively working on diversity and inclusion, rising to nearly 49% among Gen Z. The talent market has priced inclusion into hiring decisions at scale. With India projected to face a skilled labour shortage by 2030, the Open for Business City Ratings 2025 explicitly identifies inclusive corporate environments as a strategic economic necessity.

The POSH Act, as currently written, does not provide a safety baseline to LGBTQIA+ employees. Organisations serious about compliance and about being workplaces where every person can function without the overhead of concealment and fear need to build that baseline themselves. The legal framework will eventually move. The question is how long organisations are willing to wait, and what the cost of that wait looks like in retention, culture, and liability.

The post The Workplace Owes Everyone Safety: Busting LGBTQIA+ Myths Around the POSH Act first appeared on Metis POSH Consulting Service LLP.

Download the case law here – Offensive Language Alone Is Not Sexual Harassment: Punjab & Haryana HC (212 downloads )

The post Punjab & Haryana HC: Offensive Language Alone Is Not Sexual Harassment first appeared on Metis POSH Consulting Service LLP.

At the same time, cases like the one reported in Nashik highlight an important reality. Even organizations with strong value systems can face gaps in implementation at the ground level. These gaps do not necessarily define the organization’s values, but they do indicate the need to strengthen how those values are translated into everyday practice.

It raises an important question: what happens when the Internal Committee itself does not function as per the intent of the law?

While the POSH Act in India clearly requires organizations to constitute and ensure the proper functioning of Internal Committees, real workplace situations often reveal gaps. These may include procedural lapses or even a lack of timely action. For organizations and consultants, this is a reminder to look beyond basic compliance and focus on building systems that ensure accountability, are accessible to employees, and are supported by a strong and respectful workplace culture.

1. When the IC does not Act: What are the alternatives?

The POSH framework in India positions the Internal Committee as the primary and most trusted mechanism for addressing complaints of workplace sexual harassment. However, concerns arise when the Internal Committee is inactive, biased, not properly constituted, or delays taking action. In such situations, the complainant may be left feeling unsupported and vulnerable.

Alternatives available to the complainant include: 

> Approaching the Local Committee (LC) at the district level

> Escalating internally to senior leadership or board-level ethics committees

> Filing a formal legal complaint

> Seeking support from external consultants or NGOs

That said, these options are often not widely known or easily accessible. It is the responsibility of organizations to clearly communicate these pathways and ensure that employees are aware of their rights and available support systems, rather than waiting for a situation to escalate.

2. The complexity of direct vs indirect reporting

One of the most overlooked aspects in such cases is the distinction between direct and indirect reporting. Direct reporting refers to situations where the complainant formally approaches the Internal Committee. Indirect reporting, on the other hand, is when information comes through a third party such as a manager, HR, a colleague, or even through anonymous channels.

In many situations similar to the Nashik case, early warning signs often emerge through indirect reporting. However, these are frequently treated as informal inputs and not acted upon.

Our perspective:

> Indirect reporting should trigger a preliminary responsibility, not be ignored

> Organizations must define clear protocols on when such disclosures become actionable

> Managers and HR must be trained to recognize and escalate responsibly

3. When the complainant shares, but does not file a complaint

A particularly sensitive situation arises when a complainant chooses to share their experience but does not wish to file a formal complaint. This is not uncommon in Indian workplaces and requires careful handling.

There are several reasons why complainants may hesitate. These may include fear of retaliation or impact on their career, lack of trust in the neutrality of the Internal Committee, emotional readiness to go through a formal process, and concerns around confidentiality.

What should organizations do?

> Respect autonomy. Avoid forcing a formal complaint

> Provide supportive measures (counseling, safety planning, role adjustments)

> Maintain confidential documentation

> Conduct a risk assessment, especially if others may be impacted

> The organisation (Not the IC) should consider initiating a suo motu inquiry in serious cases.

Ignoring such disclosures can be as harmful as handling them incorrectly, as it weakens trust in the system and may allow issues to persist.

4. Power, Silence, and the Myth of “Untouchable” Individuals

A recurring and uncomfortable reality in many organizations is the belief that some individuals are too powerful to be questioned, and that it is safer to remain silent. This perception, whether real or assumed, can significantly weaken the effectiveness of the POSH framework.

When employees feel that senior leaders, high performers, or influential individuals are beyond scrutiny, that complaints against them may not be taken seriously, or that speaking up could negatively impact their careers, the system becomes difficult to access in practice.

This is where organizations must take a firm stand:

> No one is above accountability, hierarchy cannot dilute due process

> Cases involving senior or influential individuals should trigger heightened governance, possibly including external IC members or independent oversight

> Leadership must visibly demonstrate zero tolerance, even at the top

> Silence in such cases is not just individual hesitation, it is often a reflection of systemic failure.

5. IC Accountability: Beyond Constitution to Consistency

The Nashik case highlights an important concern. Internal Committees may be formally constituted, but their effectiveness in practice can vary, especially in organizations with multiple locations.

Some common gaps include differences in how cases are handled across branches, insufficient training of IC members, deviations from prescribed procedures, and excessive dependence on HR without independent application of judgment.

Key accountability measures:

> Standardized SOPs across locations

> Periodic IC audits and mock drills

> Mandatory refresher training

> External oversight or third-party audits

> Defined metrics for IC effectiveness

> Consistency directly impacts credibility and trust.

6. The Missing Piece: Organizational Culture Audits

Compliance alone is not enough to prevent cases like the Nashik incident. The underlying issue often lies in the organizational culture. A system that only reacts after a complaint is filed cannot make up for a workplace where employees feel unsafe, unheard, or hesitant to speak up.

Recommendation: Annual Cultural Study by HR

> Anonymous surveys on:

   – Psychological safety

   – Trust in reporting mechanisms

   – Perception of fairness

> Segmented insights across locations, roles, and demographics

> Identification of high-risk pockets

> Action plans linked to leadership accountability

> This shifts organizations from reactive compliance to proactive prevention.

The Real Question

The Nashik case is not an anomaly—it is a signal. A signal that a mechanisms without accountability fail,  Processes without trust remain unused  and a culture ultimately determines whether systems work.

For organizations, the real question is: “Do employees believe the system will protect them—even against the most powerful?”

If the answer is uncertain, the work is far from done.

The post The Nashik Case – Rethinking accountability and alternatives first appeared on Metis POSH Consulting Service LLP.

A closer look at what’s really broken

Your organisation probably has an Internal Committee for POSH complaints. But does anyone actually know who’s on it, what it does, or whether they can trust it? That gap is where workplaces fail.

For most organisations, setting up an Internal Committee for sexual harassment feels like the finish line, get the names on a notice board, run an annual awareness session, file the paperwork, and move on. What gets missed entirely is the part that actually matters: whether employees know the IC exists, whether they believe it will be fair, and whether they trust it enough to walk through that door when something goes wrong. 

That gap between having an IC and having one that helps the organisation is exactly what this piece unpacks, drawing from a deep dive conversation on the Metis Posh Radio where POSH experts break down why IC Committees are critical for organisational governance and why, despite being legally mandated, most employees still don’t trust them.

METIS POSH RADIO – Listen to the full conversation here: 

METIS POSH ON YOUTUBE  – Watch our full conversation here: 

The IC isn’t just a compliance box. It serves 3 functions that directly affect the health of an organisation. 

1. The first is risk management, because sexual harassment cases that bypass proper process almost always become legal risks, and legal risks get expensive and public very quickly. 
2. The second is cost, because when a high performer leaves the organisation due to a lack of a functional mechanism to address harassment, the business absorbs recruiting costs, training time, and continuity disruptions that were entirely avoidable. 
3. The third is ethical governance, and this is the one most organisations underestimate. The IC is designed to function as a custodian of ethics, operating with the powers of a civil court, conducting proper inquiries, and ensuring that both parties receive a fair hearing. When companies skip the process and let managers handle complaints informally, the investigation is rarely thorough, confidentiality breaks down almost immediately, and the case can still go legal, with the organisation having nothing to show for its handling of the situation.

Making Your IC Visible and Accessible 

Where organisations consistently fall short is in making their IC easily visible and accessible. Many organisations find it embarrassing to display IC information prominently, as though acknowledging that harassment can occur is itself a problem. So, the names go on a corner notice board, the email IDs never get updated, and when an employee actually needs to reach someone, they discover the phone number rings a person who left the company two years ago. That kind of neglect communicates something very specific: the organisation hasn’t thought about this in a long time.

Visibility also means making IC members known as people rather than just names on a list. When employees have seen IC members at town halls or during awareness sessions, the barrier to approaching them drops significantly. Nobody wants to walk up to a complete stranger and share something deeply personal and embarrassing. Even a basic introduction, just having seen someone’s face before, makes the difference between an employee filing a complaint and an employee quietly deciding to leave.

The Trust Problem Goes Deeper Than Structure

An IC can be properly constituted and still not be trusted, because trust is built through behaviour, not paperwork. The structural side matters: including an external member, ensuring no reporting relationships exist between IC members and the parties involved, and reconstituting the committee immediately if bias surfaces during an inquiry rather than pushing through and hoping for the best. But equally important is the everyday conduct of IC members long before any complaint is filed. If IC members are known for dismissing concerns, or if their own behaviour in the workplace is questionable, employees will not go to them. The IC’s daily credibility is the organisation’s clearest signal about whether the process is real.

Confidentiality, Retaliation, and What They Cost

The Indian National Bar Association (INBA) national survey on POSH found that half of the women who face sexual harassment don’t report it, and concerns about confidentiality are a significant reason. In practice, confidentiality breaks down early and often: managers pass information upward, well-meaning colleagues start asking questions, and before the IC has even convened, the entire organisation knows. Reputations get damaged on the basis of rumour rather than due process, and the next person who experiences something decides it isn’t worth reporting.

Retaliation follows the same pattern of quiet damage: leaving someone out of regular meetings, shifting how their work gets reviewed, or simply making the workplace uncomfortable enough that leaving feels easier than staying. The IC is mandated to protect against this, with tools like interim relief, physical separation of parties, and removal of a respondent’s authority over the complainant during the inquiry. Making clear that retaliation is punishable isn’t optional; it’s part of what gives the process its integrity.

A functional IC is visible, structurally sound, behaviorally credible, and genuinely protective of both parties throughout the process. That is not an unreachable standard. But it does require organisations to stop treating the IC as a compliance exercise and start treating it as what it actually is: the clearest signal they can send about whether their workplace is a safe place to work in.

For Sales and collaboration: contact@posh.metisindia.com

Follow us:

Instagram: instagram.com/metisposh
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/metisposh
X: @metisposh
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@metisposh
Radio: https://posh.metisindia.com/metis-posh-radio/
Website: www.posh.metisindia.com
Phone: +91-95355 66588

The post When the IC Exists, But People Don’t Trust It first appeared on Metis POSH Consulting Service LLP.

Case Title: Dr Mohinder Kumar vs The Chairman, NABARD (Writ Petition 1635 of 2021)

The Bombay High Court last week, came to the rescue of an employee of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), who challenged the penalty of ‘Reprimand’ imposed on him by the Central Complaints Committee (CCC) for ‘video recording’ his female colleagues who often ‘disturbed’ the working hours by ‘sitting together, giggling, gossiping and singing.’

A division bench noted that the CCC by its order passed on June 30, 2020 held that the conduct of the petitioner – Dr Mohinder Kumar did not amount to ‘sexual harassment’ as prescribed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH), however, it recommended action against him.

On this very recommendation, the competent authority, Chief General Manager of NABARD imposed a penalty of ‘Reprimand’ on Kumar as the CCC in its report stated that his ‘conduct of shooting video, though did not amount to sexual harassment but was also not justified.’  In view of the recommendations, the Chief General Manager of NABARD had imposed a major penalty (under Reprimand) of ‘compulsory retirement’ on Kumar and he was subsequently retired by the bank.

Challenging the findings of the CCC and the penalty by the competent authority, Kumar relied on section 13(2) of the POSH Act, which provides that when the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) arrives at a conclusion that the allegations against a person are not proved, then it has to recommend to the employer that no action is required in the said matter.

Considering the facts of the case, the judges in their January 12 order, said, “Upon going through the order of penalty imposed by the Competent Authority dated September 24, 2020, it is evident that the disciplinary authority has imposed the penalty of ‘Reprimand’ solely on the basis of the recommendation made by the CCC. The CCC is a Committee specially constituted to address the grievances of sexual harassment, hence once the Committee has formed an opinion that the conduct of the Petitioner did not constitute ‘sexual harassment’, it could not have recommended any action against the Petitioner. It should have simply closed the matter and dismissed the complaint.”  The court stated that the CCC in the instant case, has acted beyond its powers.

“The CCC has exceeded its jurisdiction by making recommendation to the Competent Authority to take suitable action against the Petitioner. Similarly, acting on the recommendation of the CCC, the Competent Authority has committed an error by imposing penalty of ‘Reprimand’ without application of his mind or making any independent inquiry, thus the order passed by the Chief General Manager and Competent Authority dated September 24, 2020 deserves to be quashed and set aside,” the judges held.

With these observations, the bench quashed and set aside the penalty imposed on Kumar.

Download the Judgement copy here – Case Law - Dr Mohinder Kumar vs The Chairman, NABARD (1049 downloads )

The post Bombay H C – Once allegation not proved, no action can follow first appeared on Metis POSH Consulting Service LLP.