The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a writ petition filed by a former Adidas India employee, who had alleged sexual harassment at her workplace and sought enforcement of the POSH Act provisions. Justice Sachin Datta, delivering the judgment, observed that the matter had already been adjudicated and was still pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, thus barring further intervention by the Delhi bench.
Background
The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta, claimed that she had worked with Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. between November 2017 and January 2019. In January 2019, she reportedly complained of sexual harassment by certain senior employees. According to her, the company failed to forward the complaint to the Internal Committee as required under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013-(POSH Act).
After no action was taken internally, she turned to the SHe-Box portal, a government mechanism for such grievances, which redirected her complaint to the Local Committee in Gurugram. That committee initiated proceedings, but these were later quashed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in March 2021, citing limitation issues and procedural lapses.
Interestingly, the petitioner did not disclose this crucial fact when she approached the Delhi High Court, a point that later became central to the court’s reasoning.
Court's Observations
Justice Datta noted that all substantive events-including the alleged harassment, the filing of complaints, and even the internal inquiries-occurred in Gurugram, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
“The substantive controversy between the parties has already been before the Punjab and Haryana High Court,” the bench observed, emphasizing that the Delhi Court could not re-examine the same set of issues under the guise of a fresh petition.
The court further highlighted that the petitioner had already filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 846/2021) against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s earlier order, which remains pending.
“Since the same controversy is alive before another competent High Court, it would be inapposite for this court to entertain parallel proceedings,” Justice Datta remarked.
Citing ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu (1994) and Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (2004), the judge explained that a High Court may exercise jurisdiction only where part of the cause of action arises within its territory, and even then, the doctrine of forum conveniens allows the court to decline jurisdiction if another forum is more appropriate.
What appeared to particularly trouble the bench was the petitioner’s failure to make a “full and frank disclosure” about ongoing proceedings elsewhere. “Such non-disclosure impinges on the credibility of the petitioner,” the court observed in clear terms.
Decision
After reviewing submissions from both sides, the Delhi High Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction and that the petitioner’s grievances were already being examined by another court. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with the judge advising the petitioner to pursue remedies before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where her appeal is already pending.
With that, the bench concluded:
"This Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition; the same is accordingly dismissed." All pending applications were also disposed of.
The case serves as a reminder of how overlapping jurisdiction and procedural omissions can derail even genuine claims under the POSH Act.
Case Title: X vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
