In a long-running workplace dispute that began more than two decades ago, the Madras High Court on February 10, 2026 delivered a detailed judgment involving allegations of sexual harassment, multiple disciplinary charges, and questions over the powers of the National Commission for Women.
Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy passed a common order in four connected writ petitions filed by The Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. and its former employee, D. Srilatha.
Read also:- Bombay HC Disposes Unmarried Woman’s Abortion Plea, Cites Supreme Court Ruling on MTP Rights
Background of the Case
Srilatha, who joined the Society in 1994, alleged that a senior official had sexually harassed her at the workplace. She claimed repeated indecent behaviour, hostile treatment, and victimisation after she resisted his advances.
She approached several authorities, including the National Commission for Women (NCW). Meanwhile, the Society issued multiple charge memos against her between 2003 and 2004, accusing her of misconduct and dereliction of duty.
The NCW constituted a high-level committee to investigate her complaint. The panel examined 21 witnesses and marked several documents. It concluded that sexual harassment had occurred and made seven recommendations, including departmental action against the accused officer and stopping further internal enquiries against Srilatha.
Both sides then approached the High Court-Srilatha seeking implementation of the NCW recommendations and full service benefits, and the Society challenging the Commission’s findings and orders relating to subsistence allowance.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Refuses to Quash Forgery Case Linked to 1963 Land Deed, Orders Police Prob
Is the Writ Maintainable?
A key issue before the Court was whether a writ petition could lie against a multi-state cooperative society.
The Society argued that it was not “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution and performed no public duty. Srilatha countered that after constitutional amendments and Supreme Court rulings, multi-state cooperatives could be subject to writ jurisdiction.
The Court examined earlier judgments and noted that although most of Part IX-B of the Constitution was struck down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah, provisions relating to multi-state cooperative societies were upheld.
More importantly, the judge relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Andi Mukta Sadguru v. V.R. Rudani, which clarified that writs can be issued not only against statutory bodies but also against entities performing public duties.
“The form of the body is not decisive. What matters is the nature of the duty,” the bench observed, emphasising that the right to a safe workplace flows from Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court held that since the dispute involved alleged violation of a woman employee’s fundamental right to dignity and protection from sexual harassment, the writ petitions were maintainable.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Flags Flawed Tree-Felling Notices, Closes Pune Coconut Trees Case
Court’s View on Sexual Harassment Findings
The Court closely reviewed the NCW’s enquiry process. It noted that the Commission had conducted a detailed fact-finding exercise and found fault with the internal complaints mechanism of the Society.
However, the judge examined whether the NCW had the authority to issue binding directions affecting disciplinary proceedings.
The Court observed that while the Commission has investigative powers under the National Commission for Women Act, its role is recommendatory. It cannot substitute itself for a disciplinary authority or issue final binding orders.
“The Commission may investigate and recommend. But it cannot adjudicate or enforce punishment,” the Court clarified.
At the same time, the bench recognised that the employer has a duty to ensure a safe working environment and comply with the law laid down in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan.
On Disciplinary Proceedings and Retirement
Srilatha argued that since she had attained superannuation in May 2023, and there was no specific rule allowing continuation of proceedings after retirement, the charge memos had lapsed. She sought full salary for the suspension period and retirement benefits.
The Society responded that the enquiry had been stalled for years due to interim court orders obtained at her instance and should be allowed to reach its logical conclusion.
The Court noted that proceedings had indeed remained pending for nearly two decades. It held that an employee cannot take advantage of delays caused by interim orders.
On the issue of subsistence allowance, the Court examined orders passed under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act and considered whether the Society was justified in withholding payments.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Orders Probe Into ₹14 Lakh Sabarimala Staff Transfers During Mandala
Decision
In its final ruling, the Court partly allowed and partly dismissed the connected writ petitions .
It held that:
- The writ petitions were maintainable against the multi-state cooperative society in the facts of this case.
- The recommendations of the National Commission for Women were not binding in nature.
- The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the employee did not automatically lapse on superannuation.
- The employer was permitted to proceed further in accordance with law.
- Relief relating to subsistence allowance and service benefits would be governed by applicable statutory provisions and the outcome of disciplinary action.
With these findings, the long-standing dispute was brought to a legal conclusion, subject to the continuation of proceedings as permitted by law.
Case Title: The Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. vs. D. Srilatha & Others
Case No.: W.P. Nos. 17338 of 2014, 3109 of 2025, 37290 of 2004, 3071 of 2005
Decision Date: 10 February 2026
