The Bombay High Court has ruled that a shared autorickshaw used by employees for their daily commute cannot be treated as a “workplace” under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, unless the transport is provided by the employer. The court consequently set aside an order of the State Bank of India’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) that had found an employee guilty of sexual harassment.
A Division Bench of Justices Firdosh P. Pooniwalla and Suman Shyam delivered the judgment on June 16, 2026, in Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute v. State Bank of India & Ors.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute, has been employed with the State Bank of India for around 14 years. According to his case, he regularly travelled from Navi Mumbai to the bank’s office at Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC), Mumbai, using local trains and shared autorickshaws.
The dispute arose from an incident on March 24, 2023, when Satpute and a woman passenger were travelling in a shared autorickshaw from Kurla railway station to BKC. Following an altercation during the journey, the woman alleged inappropriate physical contact and later filed a complaint.
The woman, who worked as a chef in another organisation, first approached her employer’s Internal Committee. The complaint was subsequently forwarded to SBI’s Internal Complaints Committee, which conducted an inquiry and, by an order dated August 29, 2023, held the petitioner guilty of sexual harassment and recommended action under service rules.
Challenging that decision, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Petitioner’s Argument
The petitioner argued that the ICC had no legal authority to investigate the complaint because the alleged incident did not occur at a “workplace” as defined under the POSH Act. He contended that the journey took place in a public shared autorickshaw and not in transport arranged by either employer.
His counsel submitted that the law includes employer-provided transportation within the definition of workplace, but not ordinary public transport used by employees during their commute.
SBI’s Stand
SBI defended the committee’s decision, arguing that the definition of “workplace” under the POSH Act should be interpreted broadly. The bank maintained that the incident occurred while the petitioner was travelling to work and therefore fell within the scope of the statute.
The bank also argued that the Internal Committee had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and determine whether the incident was connected to the workplace.
Court’s Observations
After examining the provisions of the POSH Act, the Bench noted that the law allows an Internal Committee to entertain complaints only when the alleged act of sexual harassment occurs at a workplace.
The judges focused on Section 2(o)(v) of the Act, which includes within the definition of workplace “transportation by the employer” for journeys undertaken in connection with employment. The court observed that the wording of the statute makes employer-provided transport a key requirement.
“The transportation has to be provided by the employer,” the Bench observed while interpreting the provision.
The court found that the petitioner and the complainant were travelling in a shared autorickshaw that had not been arranged or provided by either employer. Therefore, the vehicle could not be treated as a workplace under the Act.
The Bench further held that an Internal Committee must first determine whether the alleged incident took place at a workplace before proceeding with a detailed inquiry.
Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the Bombay High Court set aside the August 29, 2023 order passed by SBI’s Internal Complaints Committee. The court held that the committee lacked jurisdiction because the alleged incident occurred in a shared public autorickshaw and not at a workplace as defined under the POSH Act.
At the same time, the Bench clarified that it had not examined the merits of the allegations themselves.
“We have not gone into the merits of the controversy, i.e. whether the petitioner had sexually harassed Respondent No.3 in the shared autorickshaw or not. The said aspect of the matter is left open to be dealt with in accordance with law in an appropriate proceeding,” the court said.
Case Details:
Case Title: Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute v. State Bank of India & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1213 of 2024
Judges: Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla
Decision Date: June 16, 2026
