Bombay HC: Shared Autorickshaw Used for Commuting Is Not a Workplace Under the POSH Act

Kaustav Chowdhury

Jun 19

5 min read

In a significant ruling that narrows the scope of what constitutes a "workplace" under Indian sexual harassment law, the Bombay High Court has held that a shared autorickshaw used by employees for daily commuting does not qualify as a workplace under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act, 2013. The Division Bench of Justices Suman Shyam and Firdosh Pooniwalla, in Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute v State Bank of India, quashed an Internal Committee (IC) order passed against an SBI employee, finding that the IC had overstepped its jurisdiction by treating a privately arranged autorickshaw as employer-provided transport.

The decision is important for employers, Internal Committees, and employees alike because it draws a clear boundary around Section 2(o)(v) of the POSH Act, the provision that extends the definition of "workplace" to transportation provided by employers. Understanding this boundary is critical for anyone involved in filing or adjudicating POSH complaints.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute, was an employee of State Bank of India. A female colleague filed a complaint against him before the bank's Internal Committee, alleging sexual harassment. The alleged incident took place inside a shared autorickshaw that both employees used for their daily commute. Crucially, this autorickshaw was not arranged, funded, or operated by SBI. It was a privately shared ride, with the employees splitting the fare among themselves.

The IC proceeded to hear the complaint and ultimately passed an order adverse to the petitioner. He challenged this order before the Bombay High Court, arguing that the IC lacked jurisdiction because the autorickshaw did not constitute a "workplace" under the POSH Act.

What Does the POSH Act Say About "Workplace"?

The POSH Act defines "workplace" broadly under Section 2(o). The definition covers government bodies, private sector organisations, sports institutions, hospitals, and any place visited by an employee arising out of or during the course of employment.

Section 2(o)(v) specifically extends the definition to include "a dwelling place or a house" and, importantly, transport provided by the employer for undertaking a journey. The operative phrase is "provided by the employer." This language places a clear condition: for transport to qualify as a workplace, the employer must be the entity providing it. A vehicle that employees privately arrange among themselves, even if the commute relates to their employment, does not meet this threshold.

This distinction matters for employers across sectors, including those covered under newer labour frameworks such as the Social Security Code, 2020, where questions of employer responsibility and worker classification are evolving rapidly.

The Court's Reasoning

The Division Bench examined the statutory language of Section 2(o)(v) closely. The Court noted that the phrase "provided by the employer" operates as a qualifying condition for transport to be treated as a workplace. This is a deliberate statutory requirement that limits the scope of the provision.

Justices Shyam and Pooniwalla observed that the autorickshaw in question was privately arranged by the employees. SBI had no role in organising, funding, or designating this transport. The bank did not contract with any autorickshaw operator, did not reimburse the fare, and did not mandate the use of any particular mode of commuting.

On this basis, the Court concluded that the IC had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint insofar as it arose from conduct inside the autorickshaw. The IC order was accordingly quashed. The ruling does not comment on the merits of the alleged conduct; it holds that the POSH Act's internal complaints mechanism was not the appropriate forum, given the location of the incident.

Implications for Employers and Internal Committees

This judgment carries practical consequences for how Internal Committees assess jurisdiction. Before proceeding with a complaint, an IC must determine whether the alleged harassment occurred at a "workplace" as defined by the Act. If the location falls outside the statutory definition, the IC lacks authority to adjudicate.

For employers, the ruling highlights the importance of clarity around transport arrangements. Where an employer provides shuttle buses, cab services, or any form of designated transport, those vehicles will be considered part of the workplace. The broader principle is that an employer's POSH obligations extend to spaces the employer controls or provides, not to every setting where employees happen to interact.

It is equally important to note what this ruling does not do. It does not leave complainants without a remedy. Conduct that constitutes sexual harassment in a non-workplace setting can still be addressed through criminal law, including provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The ruling clarifies the jurisdictional limits of the POSH Act's internal redressal mechanism. Employees seeking to understand their full range of options may also consider protections under other labour welfare legislation, such as the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which provides additional workplace protections for women.

When Does Employer-Provided Transport Qualify?

The Bombay High Court's reasoning invites a closer look at what qualifies as "transport provided by the employer." While the judgment does not lay down an exhaustive list, several scenarios can be inferred from the statutory language.

Transport will likely qualify as employer-provided when the employer contracts with a transport vendor for employee pick-up and drop services, when the employer owns or operates shuttle buses or company vehicles, when cab services are booked and paid for by the employer (including through corporate accounts with aggregators), or when the employer reimburses travel costs for a specific, designated mode of transport.

By contrast, scenarios where employees independently carpool, share autorickshaws, or use public transport will generally fall outside the definition. The absence of employer involvement in the transport arrangement is the distinguishing factor. Employers should review their transport policies and ensure that where they do provide transport, appropriate POSH compliance measures extend to those vehicles and routes.

Key Takeaways

1. "Provided by the employer" is the key qualifier. Section 2(o)(v) of the POSH Act only extends workplace status to transport that the employer arranges, funds, or controls. Privately shared commuting arrangements do not meet this standard.

2. Internal Committees must verify jurisdiction before proceeding. An IC that entertains a complaint arising from a non-workplace location risks having its order quashed on judicial review, as happened in this case.

3. Complainants retain other legal remedies. The ruling does not leave victims without recourse. Criminal law provisions continue to apply regardless of location, and complaints can be filed with the police or other statutory bodies.

4. Employers providing transport should extend POSH safeguards to those services. Company buses, contracted cabs, and employer-reimbursed travel all likely qualify as the workplace. Employers should include transport-related policies in their POSH framework.

5. The statutory text controls the analysis. Courts will look at the plain language of Section 2(o) to determine jurisdiction. Internal Committees and legal advisors should anchor their jurisdictional analysis in the text of the statute rather than in general principles alone.