Does Conciliation End Employer’s PoSH Responsibilities?

What does conciliation actually conclude, the complaint, the inquiry, or the organisation’s responsibility to act? For many companies and Internal Committees(ICs), conciliation under the POSH framework has become a practical way to close a complaint, to de-escalate conflict and restore workplace stability. But it also leaves behind an unsettled question: when an Internal Committee’s inquiry stops after settlement, does the employer’s responsibility to address misconduct stop too? 

This dilemma has now been considered by the High Court in a case arising from similar circumstances. In its decision, the Court drew a clear demarcation between the role of the Internal Committee in conducting inquiries under the PoSH framework and the employer’s separate responsibility to address workplace misconduct. To see how this question played out in practice, it helps to look briefly at what happened in the case. 

Case in Brief

In this case, the complainant was a woman officer working under the supervision of the employee against whom she lodged a complaint of sexual harassment. The complaint was placed before the IC, where, during proceedings, both parties chose conciliation in order to reduce workplace disturbance. The complainant did not press for a full inquiry, citing mental distress, and the Committee recorded the settlement while also noting that evidence was lacking.

After the conciliation concluded, the complainant raised concerns about the Committee’s observation that there was insufficient evidence and later shared a screenshot of a message she found objectionable. The matter was referred back to the Internal Committee, which declined to reopen the inquiry, pointing to the statutory bar under Section 10(4) of the PoSH Act on conducting further proceedings once conciliation has successfully concluded.

However, the employer initiated a separate departmental inquiry against the respondent based on concerns arising from his conduct. The respondent challenged this action, arguing that once conciliation has taken place, it bars any further inquiry into the same allegations. The Court therefore had to decide whether conciliation ends only the Internal Committee’s process, or also the employer’s ability to take further action. 

Court’s Ruling

The High Court drew a careful line between what conciliation is meant to achieve and what it cannot replace. It held that when a complaint is resolved through conciliation, the Internal Committee’s formal inquiry comes to an end. The Committee cannot reopen investigation into the same complaint once a settlement has been recorded. This limitation is built into Section 10(4) of the POSH Act, which was designed to ensure that conciliation is a voluntary and final process for the parties involved.

However, the Court made an equally important clarification: this statutory bar applies only to the Internal Committee’s inquiry. It does not remove the employer’s separate authority to examine workplace misconduct through disciplinary mechanisms under service rules. In other words, while the POSH process may close procedurally, the organisation’s responsibility to assess conduct risks and ensure workplace safety does not automatically close with it.

“A bare reading of Section 10(4) of the 2013 Act makes it very clear that what is barred is any further inquiry after the conciliation by the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, and it does not extend to the employer’s independent disciplinary jurisdiction which flows from the Service Rules”

-High Court

The Court clarified that Section 10(4) of the Act bars only further inquiry by the Internal Committee after settlement, and cannot be read as a blanket prohibition on organisational disciplinary processes.

The Court noted that the PoSH Act provides a basic framework, but an employer’s responsibility to maintain a safe workplace goes beyond it. Employers have an ongoing responsibility to ensure a safe workplace. That responsibility does not end just because a complaint has been settled through conciliation. Settlement may ease immediate tensions, but it cannot replace the need to address behaviour that may still affect safety or dignity at work. For this reason, the Court allowed the employer’s disciplinary proceedings to continue.

“Section 19 of the 2013 Act casts an obligation on the employer to ensure a safe workplace. The statutory duty cannot be negated merely because the complainant agreed to conciliate at one stage.”

Taken together, the ruling quietly reshapes how post-conciliation responsibility must be understood. For Internal Committees and companies, it raises a practical question: once the POSH process formally ends, where does organisational accountability now begin?

What This Means for Internal Committees and Companies

The ruling clarifies a practical boundary. Conciliation brings formal closure to the Internal Committee’s inquiry. It does not close the employer’s responsibility to respond to workplace conduct concerns under its own disciplinary framework. Internal Committees cannot reopen inquiries once settlement is recorded, but employers may still act where conduct-related risks remain unresolved.

In practical terms:

• Conciliation ends the Internal Committee’s statutory inquiry process.
  
• The statutory bar on “further inquiry” applies only to the Committee, not to the employer’s disciplinary powers.
  
• Employers may initiate independent action under service rules if concerns about workplace conduct persist.
  
• Treating conciliation as full closure risks leaving behavioural issues unaddressed.

As organisations adjust to this distinction between procedural closure and continuing accountability, the real challenge is no longer interpretation, but continuity. When conciliation ends an Internal Committee’s inquiry, records of what was examined, what was settled, and what concerns remain should not be scattered across emails, files, or individual memory. Maintaining a single, coherent record of the complaint, the conciliation process, settlement terms, Committee observations, new material, and any subsequent disciplinary action is essential for clarity and defensibility.

This is where Conduct fits in. It provides Internal Committees and HR teams with a unified case workspace where PoSH inquiry records and post-conciliation disciplinary processes remain linked, yet clearly distinguished. Each complaint exists as a single case file, with structured stages, documented proceedings, stored evidence, and recorded management actions. This allows organisations to show, when needed, that while the PoSH inquiry formally ended, their responsibility to respond to workplace conduct concerns continued.