The Bombay High Court PoSH Act autorickshaw ruling has clarified the scope of the term “workplace” under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
In Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute v. State Bank of India & Ors., a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court set aside a disciplinary recommendation against a bank employee. The court held that a shared autorickshaw hired independently on a public road does not qualify as a “workplace” under Section 2(o)(v) of the PoSH Act.
The Bench comprised Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla. The judgment was reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 290, with Neutral Citation 2026:BHC-OS:13187-DB.
The case arose from an incident on March 24, 2023. An SBI employee regularly travelled by train from Navi Mumbai to Kurla. He then used a shared autorickshaw to reach his workplace at Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC).
During one such journey, an altercation took place with a female co-passenger. She was a chef employed by another organisation. The woman alleged that the bank employee made inappropriate physical contact.
She reportedly used pepper spray during the incident and approached the local authorities. A criminal case was registered at the BKC Police Station under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The woman also approached her employer’s Internal Committee. The complaint was subsequently transferred to SBI.
On August 29, 2023, SBI’s Internal Committee concluded its inquiry. It found the employee liable for sexual harassment and recommended disciplinary action under the applicable service rules.
The employee challenged the decision before the Bombay High Court. His primary challenge concerned the Internal Committee’s jurisdiction to examine the incident.
The dispute centred on Section 2(o)(v) of the PoSH Act. The provision includes places visited by an employee during the course of employment. It also covers transportation provided by the employer for such journeys.
The employee argued that a shared autorickshaw hired independently on a public road was not employer-provided transport. SBI, however, argued that the Internal Committee had authority to examine the complaint under the relevant provisions of the Act.
The court rejected the bank’s argument. It held that the existence of a “workplace” is an essential jurisdictional requirement.
According to the Bench, an Internal Committee must first establish that an alleged incident occurred at a statutory workplace. It cannot assume jurisdiction and then decide the issue as part of the merits of the complaint.
The court further held that transport qualifies as a workplace under Section 2(o)(v) when it is provided or arranged by the employer.
The shared autorickshaw in the present case was not supplied or managed by SBI. It was also not provided by the complainant’s employer.
The court therefore held that the journey did not meet the statutory definition of a workplace. The Internal Committee consequently lacked jurisdiction to decide the complaint under the PoSH Act.
The High Court quashed the Internal Committee’s order. However, it did not examine the factual allegations or determine whether the employee was guilty.
The parties remain free to pursue appropriate remedies before competent legal forums.
The Bombay High Court PoSH Act autorickshaw ruling may have wider implications for harassment complaints involving daily commutes.
Many employees rely on public transport, app-based cabs, shared vehicles, and private travel arrangements. These modes of transport are often not provided or arranged by employers.
The judgment therefore highlights a potential gap in the existing statutory framework. Harassment occurring during such journeys may fall outside the procedural mechanism of the PoSH Act.
Employers may still address such conduct under service rules or internal codes of conduct. However, such remedies may not provide the same specialised safeguards available under the PoSH Act.
Earlier judicial decisions had adopted a broader understanding of the term “workplace.” The principles in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan supported a wider approach to workplace safety.
The Delhi High Court also examined the issue in Saurabh Kumar Mallick v. Comptroller and Auditor General of India (2008). The decision cautioned against restricting the term “workplace” to traditional office premises.
The Bombay High Court’s latest judgment, however, focused on the specific wording of Section 2(o)(v). The provision expressly refers to transportation provided by the employer.
The ruling therefore draws a clear distinction between employer-arranged transport and independently used public transport under the PoSH Act.
