Case 02 · POSH Exposure

“We did not have a valid ICC. We did not know.”

Delhi disputes boutique · 14 lawyers · 6 years

MaterialStatutory exposure + reputational + lost government work
02 / 08Composite Indian law-firm case

What broke

A junior associate filed a POSH complaint regarding conduct by a senior. The firm scrambled to constitute an ICC — and discovered the existing "committee" had only three members instead of the statutory minimum, no external member with NGO/women-rights background, and no documented complaint procedure. The complainant's counsel pointed out the non-compliance. The firm was simultaneously dealing with the underlying allegation, a procedural defect in its own ICC, and a panel inquiry by the Labour Commissioner.

Why it broke

The firm had crossed the 10-employee threshold three years prior and never updated its compliance posture. The ICC had been formed on paper as a tick-box exercise, never refreshed, never trained, and never tested. POSH Act Section 4 and Section 26 are clear: 10+ employees triggers mandatory ICC with prescribed composition. Non-compliance: fine up to ₹50,000 first offence, ₹1 lakh in some states, repeat offence doubles plus licence cancellation risk.

How CTD would have caught this

  • HR onboarding includes immediate POSH compliance audit
  • Annual POSH refresh: external member rotation, annual report filing, training
  • Documented complaint procedure handed to every new joiner at induction
  • When a complaint arrives, the firm responds from procedural strength
  • POSH disclosure ready for Companies Act Board's Report (2025 amendment)
Tags:
HRCompliancePOSH Act 2013
Chat with Muskan