In a detailed judgment reserved in September and pronounced on November 3, 2025, the Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a senior pilot of Akasa Air. The pilot, referred to as ABC, had approached the Court against the airline’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), alleging that the sexual harassment inquiry against him violated principles of natural justice.
Justice N. J. Jamadar, hearing the matter, held that the petition was not maintainable, given the alternative appellate remedy available under Section 18 of the POSH Act, 2013.
Background
The case arose from a complaint made by a trainee captain (Respondent No. 3) in November 2024, accusing the petitioner of inappropriate conduct that allegedly created discomfort during training sessions.
Following the inquiry, the ICC submitted its final report in February 2025. The committee issued several recommendations:
- a final warning letter,
- refresher POSH training,
- a six-month bar on promotion, and
- temporary suspension of travel benefits.
The pilot, however, claimed that he was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses and not given a personal hearing, amounting to a blatant violation of natural justice. He urged the Court to quash the ICC’s findings and order a fresh inquiry.
Court's Observations
Justice Jamadar examined whether a writ petition could be entertained against a private employer like Akasa Air. Referring to several Supreme Court precedents, including Andi Mukta Sadguru Trust v. V. R. Rudani and Federal Bank v. Sagar Thomas, the Court held that private bodies are generally not amenable to writ jurisdiction unless they discharge public duties.
"None of the respondents answer the description of ‘State’ or 'instrumentality of the State' under Article 12," the bench noted, adding that Akasa Air and its ICC were private entities.
The judge drew a fine distinction: while an ICC refusing to entertain a complaint may involve a "public law element," procedural lapses within an inquiry such as denial of cross-examination-fall within the scope of appellate review, not writ jurisdiction.
The Court also discussed the principles of natural justice. Citing K. L. Tripathi v. SBI and Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Justice Jamadar explained that cross-examination is not mandatory in every inquiry, especially when the basic facts are not in dispute.
"A denial of cross-examination need not necessarily cause such prejudice as to vitiate the inquiry in every case," the bench observed.
Moreover, the judge noted that the pilot had admitted several incidents mentioned in the preliminary report. Hence, the absence of oral hearing or cross-examination did not cause prejudice substantial enough to invalidate the ICC process.
Decision
Holding that the petitioner’s grievance could be adequately addressed through the statutory appeal mechanism, the Court declined to exercise its writ powers.
"The facts of the case are not such as would warrant the exercise of writ jurisdiction, despite the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal," Justice Jamadar concluded.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, though the Court granted a four-week window for the pilot to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 18 of the POSH Act. It also directed that the time spent pursuing the writ petition should be excluded for limitation purposes.
The judgment clarifies the limited scope of High Court intervention in POSH-related disputes arising from private workplaces and underscores the primacy of internal and statutory appeal mechanisms over writ petitions.
Case Title: ABC vs. Internal Complaints Committee of Akasa Air & Ors.