Safeguarding Justice: Interim Relief in POSH Inquiries

A 2022 report by Gapjil 119 revealed a stark reality: 8 out of 10 women who report sexual harassment at the workplace face some form of retaliation. Imagine the courage it takes for a complainant to step forward, only to face backlash that threatens her job security, reputation, or daily work life. This reality creates a chilling effect, discouraging many from reporting incidents and perpetuating a culture of silence and fear.

For Internal Committees (ICs), justice is not limited to deciding right or wrong; it demands ensuring that the inquiry pathway remains fair, safe, and accessible. Interim relief is a vital tool in this process, preserving the complainant’s dignity and preventing retaliation while the inquiry is underway.

As the Karnataka High Court stated in Nagaraj GK v. Additional Labour Commissioner,

“Where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts, or employing such means, as are essentially necessary to its execution.”

Accordingly, the IC must consider and, where appropriate, grant interim relief, temporary protective measures to safeguard the complainant’s safety, dignity, and ability to participate freely in the process. These may include transferring either party, granting leave, or restricting the respondent’s interactions.

The PoSH Act mandates such measures to ensure the inquiry remains safe, non-retaliatory, and conducive to justice. Without effective interim relief, workplace culture risks sustaining barriers to reporting and protections, undermining both compliance and fairness throughout the process.

Statutory Basis for Interim Relief

Section 12 of the PoSH Act, 2013, provides a framework for interim relief. During an inquiry, if the aggrieved woman submits a written request, the IC or Local Complaints Committee (LCC) may recommend to the employer:

• Transferring the complainant or the respondent to another workplace
• Granting the complainant up to three months’ leave, in addition to existing entitlements
• Providing other relief necessary to ensure safety and dignity

Employers must act on IC recommendations and report the actions taken. Interim relief is not automatic; it requires a written request from the complainant for the IC to recommend protective measures. However, employers retain broad administrative authority to make transfers or adjustments independently to maintain workplace order and safety.

Courts have repeatedly recognized and implied the vital importance of interim relief, emphasizing that such powers are inherently necessary to ensure a fair, safe, and effective inquiry process under the POSH Act. Courts have held that: 

1. Doesn’t Depend On Complainant’s Request

ICs do not always require a specific written request to provide interim relief. They have the authority to assess situations and issue interim measures proactively to maintain a safe and fair inquiry process. In the case of Dinesh Chandra Mishra v. Trilochan Mohapatra, an employee challenged his transfer during a PoSH inquiry, arguing it lacked justification and alleging no interim relief request was made by the complainant. The court held:

“In our view, there is no merit in this submission; firstly, the right of the employer to transfer the employee who is facing inquiry, or even otherwise, is not dependent upon such a request being made by the complainant.”

This decision reinforces the principle that workplace adjustments aimed at protecting the integrity of the inquiry or ensuring safety fall under the employer’s prerogative and are not contingent on a complainant’s written request. Such actions support a fair and secure environment for all parties during the investigation

2. Proactive Measures to preserve the Status Quo

In the case of Sri Nagaraj G.K. v. The Hon’ble Additional Labour Commissioner, the court highlighted a key principle: the proactive obligation of authorities to take measures that preserve the status quo during pending proceedings.

Although the respondent was transferred based on the recommendations of the IC, he subsequently moved to the appellate authority seeking a stay. The appellate authority merely issued a notice without granting the stay, leading to the petitioner’s grievance that the delay in interim relief allowed for potential irreparable harm.

The court ruled that even though Section 18 of the POSH Act and Rule 11 do not explicitly grant the appellate authority the power to grant interim relief, courts inherently possess the necessary authority to ensure their orders are effective.

This ruling underscores a fundamental principle: authorities must act proactively, using their inherent powers, to prevent injury or harm when there’s a risk of losing the status quo during investigations or appeals. 

3. Conditional Continuation of Employment

The case of Sukalyan Haldar v. State of West Bengal and Others, Kolkata High Court, involved the Secretary of the Managing Committee of a school who faced allegations of sexual harassment. Herein the court emphasized the principle of preserving the petitioner’s employment status during the ongoing inquiry, directing that the petitioner could continue in his role but with restrictions on interacting with the complainant and involvement in any decisions affecting her.

This ruling underscores the vital principle that interim relief must balance preserving employment status while safeguarding the investigation’s integrity and impartiality. Such conditional continuation serves as a protective measure maintaining fairness and preventing interference, upholding the rights of both complainant and respondent throughout the inquiry process.

Practical Guidance for Internal Committees

When drafting interim relief recommendations, ICCs must focus primarily on protecting the complainant’s safety, dignity, and emotional well-being, ensuring that the inquiry proceeds fairly and without retaliation. Under Section 12 of the POSH Act, interim relief can include transferring either party, granting leave for up to three months beyond entitlements, or other necessary measures to protect safety and dignity.

ICCs should proactively recommend interim relief even without a formal written request if circumstances require, documenting rationale clearly. Employers must be clearly informed of these recommendations with a legal obligation to implement and report compliance. Interim relief may also involve restricting the respondent’s interaction to safeguard the inquiry’s integrity. While protecting the complainant, ICCs must also ensure fair treatment of respondents by avoiding punitive measures unless absolutely necessary.

Timeliness and proper documentation of interim relief are critical to prevent prolonged hardship and preserve trust in the inquiry process. Parties must be informed at the outset of their rights and the potential interim relief options.

Looking ahead, workplace dynamics are evolving rapidly, hybrid work models, changing employee expectations, and stricter regulatory scrutiny mean ICCs must be nimble and proactive. The role of ICCs is growing beyond compliance to fostering psychological safety and equitable work environments. To keep pace with this evolving landscape, continuous training and updating are vital.

Ungender supports this journey by empowering ICC members through expert-led training that builds their confidence, competence, and capacity to handle POSH matters effectively and compassionately. Furthermore, Ungender is excited to collaborate with the Bombay Chamber of Commerce & Industry for a 2-Day In-Person PoSH Certification Program on November 27–28, 2025, in Mumbai. This workshop will help IC members navigate real inquiry cases, identify common pitfalls, and strengthen skills around due process and defensible documentation.