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 (473 downloads )

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