ICC was reconstituted as the previous ICC was not in compliance with the POSH Act.

The Petitioner filed the petition in order for the court to order the employer to take action based on the findings of the ICC. The petitioner claimed that the first ICC report, which found the respondent guilty, had to be taken into consideration. The Respondent claimed that the first report was not valid as the signature of the chairperson was missing from the initial report. The Respondent claimed that the second ICC report, after the reconstitution of the same, shall be considered.

The court decided that there was to be a reconstituted ICC and the members for the same were to be selected by the court itself.

It was found that the first report indeed did not have the signatures of the members, except for the chairman which made the report a void one. The second ICC committee consisted of two members who were witnesses in the previous proceedings, which meant that their findings could also not be given any merit, hence creating a conflict of interest. The Court decided that both the ICC proceedings were flawed and that there was to be a reconstituted ICC and the members for the same were to be selected by the court itself.