Case Background

• The petitioner, a Captain at Akasa Air, was assigned to train Respondent No.3 (a trainee pilot).

• On November 24, 2024, the trainee complained to the Internal Complaints Committee (Respondent No.1) alleging that ABC’s behavior and remarks created an uncomfortable and unprofessional work environment.

• The ICC conducted an inquiry, heard both parties, and issued its final report on February 12, 2025, recommending:

  1. Issuance of a final warning letter to the petitioner.

  2. Mandatory POSH refresher training.

  3. Suspension of promotions/upgrades for six months.

  4. Temporary revocation of travel privileges for 45 days.

• ABC challenged the report under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, alleging violation of natural justice and seeking a fresh inquiry.

Petitioner’s Contentions

1. Violation of natural justice:

   • The ICC denied the petitioner the right to cross-examine witnesses and seek a personal hearing, contrary to Rule 7 of the POSH Rules, 2013.

   • Findings were based solely on written submissions without oral proceedings.

   • The ICC failed to provide reasoned findings or consider the petitioner’s rebuttals.

2. Maintainability of writ petition:

   • The petitioner argued that, even if Akasa Air is a private entity, the ICC performed a statutory public duty under the POSH Act and thus falls within the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.

3. Alternative remedy exception:

   • Although Section 18 of the POSH Act provides an appeal mechanism, the petitioner contended that writ jurisdiction is justified due to gross violation of natural justice.

Respondents’ Arguments

• Akasa Air (Respondent No.2) and the ICC (Respondent No.1) contended that:

  • The writ petition was not maintainable, as both entities are private bodies, not “State” or “instrumentality of the State” under Article 12.

  • The petitioner had an adequate statutory remedy—an appeal under Section 18 POSH Act.

  • Procedural lapses, if any, could be addressed in the appeal, not through writ jurisdiction.

• Reliance was placed on precedents such as R.S. Madireddy v. Union of India (2024) (regarding privatized entities) and Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas (2003).

Court’s Analysis

1. Maintainability Against Private Entities:

   • The Court reaffirmed that writs under Article 226 can lie against private entities only if they discharge public duties.

   • While POSH compliance is a statutory obligation, Akasa Air and its ICC do not perform a public function warranting direct writ interference.

   • The Karnataka High Court’s ruling in Ms. X v. ICC (2024) was distinguished because that case involved refusal to conduct an inquiry, not alleged procedural lapses.

2. Existence of Alternate Remedy:

   • The POSH Act provides a clear appellate mechanism under Section 18.

   • Following the Supreme Court’s rulings in Whirlpool Corp. v. Registrar of Trademarks (1998) and Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2021), the Court held that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked unless:

     • There is violation of fundamental rights;

     • Violation of natural justice; or

     • Lack of jurisdiction.

   • The Court found that the petitioner had an opportunity to respond to preliminary findings and was not substantially prejudiced.

3. Natural Justice and Prejudice:

   • The Court emphasized that the ICC’s inquiry is fact-finding, not strictly governed by procedural or evidentiary rules.

   • Relying on K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India (1984), it held that denial of cross-examination does not automatically vitiate proceedings unless real prejudice is shown.

   • As the petitioner admitted several incidents and only contested interpretation, no serious prejudice was established.

   • The lack of oral hearing did not invalidate the inquiry since written representation was allowed.

Judgment

• The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, given:

  1. Existence of an efficacious appellate remedy under Section 18 POSH Act.

  2. Respondents being private entities, not performing public functions.

  3. Lack of demonstrated substantial prejudice due to alleged procedural lapses.

• However, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks, directing that the time spent in pursuing the writ be excluded from limitation computation.

Significance

This judgment clarifies the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 against private organizations and emphasizes adherence to statutory remedies in POSH-related disputes. It also distinguishes between procedural irregularities and denial of natural justice causing real prejudice, reinforcing that fact-finding inquiries under POSH Act are not bound by rigid evidentiary rules.