The external member cannot be left out of your PoSH committee

An educational trust dismissed an employee after a sexual harassment inquiry. The Labour Court set aside the committee’s report and the termination, ordered reinstatement, and required a fresh committee that included an external member. But the new committee was not appointed promptly. When the Trust challenged the order, the Madras High Court criticised management’s delay and told it to get the fresh process moving.[1]

For HR teams, employers and college administrators, this case explains what needs attention when an inquiry has to start again. Internal Committee (IC) members, employees on either side of a complaint and legal teams should read it too: reinstatement, committee appointments and a decision on the allegations are different questions.

The inquiry that had to begin again

The employee challenged his dismissal before the Principal Labour Court in Chennai.[1]

The Labour Court set aside both the committee’s report and the termination order. It directed the employer to reinstate him and arrange a fresh inquiry. The replacement committee had to comply with the PoSH Act’s membership requirements, including an external member.[1]

That last requirement matters to anyone appointing an IC. The external member belongs on the committee itself. An organisation cannot treat the position as an optional advisory service outside the inquiry.[2]

There is a limit to what this particular High Court judgment tells us. It reproduces the Labour Court’s directions but does not describe the earlier committee’s membership or attendance. It does not tell us whether no external member had been appointed, someone had missed a hearing, or there had been a different appointment defect. We should not turn that missing detail into a finding the judgment does not record.[1]

The verified position is that the report and termination had been set aside, a properly constituted committee was required, and the complaint needed to be heard again.[1]

Why the employer went to the High Court

The P.T. Lee Chengalvaraya Naicker Trust asked the Madras High Court to set aside the Labour Court’s order. Its explanation for not carrying out the fresh process was that a trustee’s tenure had ended and a new trustee needed to be appointed.[1]

The Trust also argued that reinstating the employee would put women students and staff at risk. It referred to allegations of similar misconduct at another college and a transfer to Chennai.[1]

These were the employer’s submissions. The High Court was not making a fresh finding that those allegations were true. A fair account of the case must keep that distinction clear.[1]

The court focused on what management had failed to do: appoint the new committee promptly. It described the delay as negligent and found no merit in the Trust’s challenge.[1]

In our reading, the employer’s position exposed a practical problem: it was raising concerns about safety while leaving the ordered process for examining the complaint unstarted.[1]

What the court required next

The High Court directed the Trust to comply with the Labour Court’s order. It gave management 30 days from the judgment of 9 October 2026 to constitute the new committee, and directed that the proceedings then be completed within three months.[1]

It also required a fair process and compliance with the applicable inquiry provisions. The order preserved management’s rights in accordance with law; it did not decide the complaint’s merits.[1]

The Labour Court had originally required completion within 90 days of the new committee’s constitution. The High Court’s later direction added a deadline for appointing that committee. These are directions in this case, not extra preparation time that every employer can add to a PoSH inquiry.[1]

Reinstatement did not mean the allegations were resolved

The Labour Court’s order required reinstatement, but it also required a fresh inquiry. It left the question of back wages for the suspension period and the period between termination and reinstatement to the outcome of that inquiry.[1]

The High Court directed compliance with that order. It did not convert reinstatement into a finding that no harassment had occurred.[1]

Nor does this case establish that every problem with an IC automatically produces reinstatement or a particular wage entitlement. Those were the employment directions made here, alongside a fresh process.[1]

For both sides, this distinction matters. Setting aside a report changes what the employer can rely on. It does not, by itself, answer the underlying complaint.

Check the appointment before the inquiry begins

The PoSH Act requires the IC to include a member from an NGO or association committed to the cause of women, or a person familiar with issues relating to sexual harassment. The employer must constitute the committee through a written order.[2]

The Act also addresses the other members, the proportion of women on the committee, and members’ terms. Appointing an external member does not cure every other problem with the committee.[2]

Our recommendation is to check the actual appointment records before the IC begins handling a complaint. Confirm who holds each position, the basis for the external member’s eligibility, and whether the appointments are still in force. Ask about connections to the parties or events that may need examination.

Also confirm that the external member can participate in the work ahead. A name on an appointment letter should not be the end of HR’s preparation. Scheduling and access to the necessary records need attention too. Our guide to the difference between an external member and other PoSH support explains why a general advisory engagement is a different arrangement.[5]

For organisations arranging this appointment, Ungender’s external member services include appointment documentation and support during committee proceedings.[3] That support does not transfer the employer’s responsibility for constituting the IC or the committee’s responsibility for assessing the complaint.

When an inquiry is sent back, act on the whole order

The following are practical recommendations, not additional directions issued by the court.

Read the decision as a set of tasks. Identify who must appoint the new committee, what must change, when the inquiry must finish, and what the order says about the employee’s position in the meantime. In this case, reinstatement, a fresh inquiry and the treatment of back wages were separate parts of the same order.[1]

Give responsibility for the appointment to a named person with the authority to act. If leadership is changing, resolve that responsibility rather than leaving the complaint waiting for an informal handover.

Track the appointment deadline separately from the inquiry deadline. A completion period that begins when a committee is constituted is not a sensible reason to postpone constituting it. This judgment expressly criticised that delay.[1]

Keep a restricted record of the directions, appointments and next steps. Conduct’s case management tools provide process timelines, reminders and audit logs.[4] They can support this follow-through, but cannot make an improperly constituted committee valid or decide what the evidence proves.

For HR, the useful lesson is to deal with both the committee’s composition and the work needed to get the inquiry moving. This case required a properly constituted replacement committee, including an external member. Management’s delay then became a further problem the High Court had to address.[1]

If you lead HR or administration at an educational institution, write to contact@ungender.in to discuss partnering with Ungender on PoSH governance.

Penned by Pallavi Pareek, Founder of Ungender and Conduct.

Case and source notes

Case: P.T. Lee Chengalvaraya Naicker Trust v. Dr. K. Kasilingam and another, W.P. No. 40625 of 2026, with W.M.P. No. 45572 of 2026. Madras High Court, Justice C. Saravanan, decided 9 October 2026. All six pages of the official judgment were read.[1]

Where to check: The Labour Court’s operative directions appear in paragraph 2, page 2. The employer’s submissions appear in paragraphs 4–5, page 3. The High Court’s criticism of delay and final directions appear in paragraphs 6–7, pages 3–4. The membership requirement is in section 4 of the PoSH Act. The judgment directs compliance with section 11 and Rule 7 of the PoSH Rules, 2013.[1][2]

Source limitations: The full Labour Court decision was not retrieved. The High Court reproduces its operative directions, not its complete reasoning. The description of a missing external member in the editorial brief therefore cannot be narrowed to a particular appointment or attendance failure on this record alone.

Dates in the judgment: The prayer and paragraph 1 identify the Labour Court order as 21 April 2026. Paragraph 6 instead refers to 25 November 2024 and states that almost 139 days had elapsed. Paragraph 1 also gives a dismissal date that differs from the termination date in the quoted Labour Court directions. The article follows the operative directions for the relief and avoids relying on these inconsistent dates or the stated elapsed-day count.[1]

Source review: The official six-page judgment was downloaded again on 3 November and matched the retained PDF byte for byte. Targeted public web searches on 3 November did not locate a later appeal or stay concerning this order. This was not a complete court-docket check and does not establish that no appeal or stay exists. The official statutory copy used is hosted by the Department of Expenditure; its retrieval does not certify that it is the latest consolidation.

Sources

[1] https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/1380988 — Madras High Court official judgment, W.P.40625/2026, 9 October 2026

[2] https://doe.gov.in/files/inline-documents/DoE_Prevention_sexual_harassment.pdf — PoSH Act 2013, official Department of Expenditure copy

[3] https://www.ungender.in/posh-external-member-services — Ungender external member services

[4] https://www.ungender.in/get-conduct/case-management — Conduct case management

[5] https://www.ungender.in/posh-partner-trainer-investigator-advisor — Ungender: PoSH partner, trainer, investigator or advisor

Photo: Werner Pfennig / Pexels. Illustrative photograph; not the institution or any inquiry discussed in this article.