SBI employee gets relief in harassment case as Bombay HC rules shared auto commute falls outside POSH law’s workplace definition

For 14 years, Mr Satpute, who was employed at SBI, commuted to his office in the Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC) by taking a local train from Navi Mumbai to Kurla, followed by a shared auto-rickshaw to BKC. However, on March 24, 2023, while on this usual route, he found himself in a predicament with a lady, who accused him of inappropriate touching.

Things escalated quickly when the lady got out of the auto and sprayed pepper spray in Satpute's eyes, and also lodged a police complaint against him. The lady, who worked as a chef, filed a complaint with her company's internal POSH committee. This committee then forwarded her complaint to Satpute's company (SBI).

After conducting an enquiry, SBI's POSH committee concluded that Satpute was guilty and recommended disciplinary action against him. Feeling wronged, Satpute filed an appeal in the Bombay High Court.


Also read: SBI employee penalised for misbehavior: Bank’s disciplinary action of cutting two salary increments upheld by high court

Details of how this incident happened

On March 24, 2023, Satpute took a shared auto from Kurla to his office in BKC as was his practice. As it was a shared auto, the driver took two more passengers and thus the total number of passengers in the auto was three and all of them were in the back seat.

The lady in question sat on the back seat at the entrance of the auto, Satpute was made to sit next to her and a third passenger sat to his right. The ride from Kurla station to BKC was bumpy and several times Satpute's left hand touched her bag, which she was carrying on her right arm. The lady took a very sensitive approach in this matter.

She made the auto stop at the American Embassy near BKC and started abusing Satpute, alleging that he had inappropriately touched her chest in the auto. She then abruptly sprayed pepper spray in his eyes. She also started shouting and soon a crowd gathered. The lady made accusations against him and abused him in filthy language.

Looking at the growing crowd and her aggressive stance, the auto driver asked Satpute as well as the lady to sit in the auto and he went ahead to "ONE BKC", where again she started calling her colleagues and asked them to come and hit him.

Fearing for this life, Satpute got off the auto and stood near IDFC Bank at BKC, where she confronted her and said that she is the daughter-in-law of an Ex-Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. She then called her father-in-law and the Mumbai police as well. After a few minutes, a police van came and took Satpute to BKC police station and a case was registered against him under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

She also lodged a complaint against him with her company's Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) by making an allegation of sexual assault against him which then forwarded the complaint to SBI. The bank referred the matter to their own Internal Complaint Committee (SBI ICC).

After making an enquiry into the complaint,on August 29, 2023, SBI's internal committee found Satpute guilty of sexual harassment and recommended that SBI should take action against him according to Service Rules.

On November 28, 2023, Satpute wrote a letter to the Deputy General Manager and CIRDO of State Bank of India, filing an appeal against the August 2023 internal committee order. He also filed an appeal in the Bombay High Court. The court issued an interim order directing SBI to not pass any final order without leave of the court.

On June 16, 2026, the Bombay High Court cancelled SBI's internal committee order against Satpute since an auto is not a workplace. But the court made it clear that she can take any other relevant legal action against him. Adv. Anand Pande and Adv. Shobit Shukla represented Satpute in the high court.

Also read: Workplace gossip, secret recordings, POSH probe: how Bombay HC ruled in manager’s favour

Why the employee won the case?

Deepak Kumar, Partner at Khaitan & Co said to ET Wealth Online that the main issue raised by the Petitioner before the Bombay High Court was a challenge to the Internal Committee's jurisdiction to entertain a complaint concerning an act of sexual harassment alleged to have been committed in a shared private autorickshaw, in which both the Petitioner and complainant (Respondent 3) were commuting from the railway station towards their respective workplaces.

This autorickshaw was neither provided nor arranged by the employer of the Petitioner or of Respondent 3. The Internal Committee assumed jurisdiction relying on its reading of various provisions of the POSH Act, and primarily the definition of "workplace" provided under Section 2(o)(v) of the POSH Act, whereby "any place visited by the employee arising out of or during the course of employment, including transportation by the employer for undertaking such journey" is considered to be a "workplace" under the POSH Act.

According to Kumar, the Bombay High Court found favour with the Petitioner's claim that the Internal Committee erred in assuming jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, since the incident did not occur at a "workplace" as defined under the POSH Act. The Court observed that the Internal Committee can only assume jurisdiction if the alleged act of sexual harassment of the respondent has taken place at a "workplace" defined under Section 2(o) of the POSH Act.

In the present case, the private autorickshaw in which the Petitioner and the Complainant were commuting did not fall within the definition of "workplace" under the POSH Act, as it was not transportation arranged or provided by the employer of either the Petitioner or the Complainant.

Kumar says that the Bombay High Court rightly held that when presented with any complaint of sexual harassment act, the Internal Committee should first decide the jurisdictional question as to whether the alleged act of sexual harassment has taken place at a "workplace", and only if the answer to this question is in the affirmative should the Internal Committee assume jurisdiction to conduct further enquiry into the complaint.

Kumar says: "In short, the Petitioner prevailed in this matter since the Internal Committee exceeded its authority in assuming jurisdiction to preside over a complaint concerning an incident that had not occurred at a "workplace" where the Internal Committee has jurisdiction."

Kumar says that it must be noted that the Court was very careful to state that it had not evaluated the merits of the complaint as to whether there was an act of sexual harassment or not on the part of the Petitioner, but was only dealing with the issue of the Internal Committee assuming jurisdiction to enquire into the complaint pursuant to the authority conferred upon the Committee under the POSH Act.

Thus Kumar says that the Complainant (i.e., Respondent 3) may therefore pursue the complaint of the alleged act of sexual harassment in accordance with applicable laws through appropriate proceedings before the relevant law enforcement authorities; however, her complaint cannot be entertained by the Internal Committee of Respondent 1, which is the employer of the Petitioner.

Bombay High Court order and discussion

A summary of this judgement (2026:BHC-OS:13320-DB) is as follows:

Shared auto from Kurla to BKC is not workplace

The high court said that Section 2(o)(v) includes within the meaning of "workplace" transportation by the employer for undertaking a journey to any place visited by the employer arising out of or during the course of employment

Therefore, in order to fall within the meaning of "workplace", the transportation has to be provided by the employer. However, in the present case, Satpute was going to his office by a shared auto which is a transportation not provided by either of their employers.

The Bombay High Court said: "In these circumstances, in our view, such transportation would not fall within the definition of a "workplace" as defined by Section 2(o)(v). For the said reason, in our view, the alleged incident has not taken place at a "workplace"."

Therefore, on this ground, SBI's internal committee cannot entertain a complaint of an aggrieved woman being subjected to sexual harassment if the alleged sexual harassment has not taken place at the "workplace".

For this reason, the high court said that in their view, SBI had no jurisdiction to entertain her complaint and pass an Order on August 29, 2023.

Therefore, the high court said that the Order dated August 29, 2023 of SBI's internal committee is un-sustainable in law and hence, liable to be set aside.

SBI's internal committee has no jurisdiction to hear her complaint

Advocate Abhijit Joshi representing SBI and its internal committee argued before the high court that by virtue of the provisions of Section 2(a), Section 9 and Section 11 of the Sexual Harassment Act, SBI's internal committee had jurisdiction to entertain her complaint.

Joshi also made the submission that SBI's internal committee could then decide whether the alleged incident took place at the "workplace" of the employer.

The Bombay High Court said that they are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Joshi.

Section 9 of the Sexual Harassment Act provides that any aggrieved woman may give in writing a complaint of sexual harassment at a "workplace" to the Internal Committee if so constituted.

In the light of the provisions of Section 9 of the Sexual Harassment Act, the Internal Committee of a company or organisation will have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint only if sexual harassment has taken place at a "workplace" as defined under Section 2(o) of the Sexual Harassment Act.

Since, in the present case, as held by the high court, the alleged sexual harassment has not taken place at a "workplace", SBI's internal committee had no jurisdiction to entertain her complaint.

In these circumstances, the high court said that the question of SBI's internal committee entertaining the complaint and then deciding whether the alleged sexual harassment took place at a "workplace", does not arise at all.

The Bombay High Court also said that in their view, the law would mandate such an Internal Committee to first decide the jurisdictional question whether the alleged sexual harassment has taken place at a "workplace" and only if the answer to that question is in the affirmative, would the Internal Committee have jurisdiction to conduct a further enquiry in the matter.

High court order

1. SBI internal committee order is quashed
2. The Bombay High Court made it absolutely clear that, in this Judgement, they have not gone into the merits of the controversy, i.e. whether the Petitioner (Satpute) had sexually harassed Respondent No.3 (lady) in the shared auto or not. The said aspect of the matter is left open to be dealt with in accordance with law in an appropriate proceeding.