Drafting and Implementing an Effective POSH Policy: Legal Requirements, Best Practices, and Risks of Non-Compliance

The Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 ("POSH Act") was enacted to ensure a safe and dignified working environment for women. This legislation mandates that every organization with more than 10 employees must formulate a comprehensive POSH Policy and establish an Internal Committee (IC) to address complaints of sexual harassment. Failure to comply with the Act or mishandling complaints can not only damage the organization’s reputation but also lead to costly litigation and judicial intervention.

This article outlines the key legal aspects of drafting a POSH Policy, the correct process for handling complaints, the legal risks of improper implementation, and case laws that highlight these issues.

II. Drafting a Legally Sound POSH Policy

1. Scope and Applicability:

• The policy must clearly state that it applies to all employees, interns, consultants, and visitors, regardless of position or tenure.
• It should cover both physical office premises and virtual/remote work environments.

2. Definition of Sexual Harassment:

The policy must align with Section 2(n) of the POSH Act and include examples of physical, verbal, non-verbal, and cyber harassment.

3. Roles and Responsibilities:

Clear definition of the role of the employer, management, the Internal Committee, and employees in preventing and addressing harassment.

4. Constitution of Internal Committee:

• The policy should specify the composition, qualifications, and tenure of IC members as per Section 4 of the Act.
• Emphasis on gender diversity and independence in the committee.

5. Complaint Mechanism:

• A step-by-step guide on how an aggrieved woman can file a complaint.
• Clarify the need for a written complaint under Section 9.

6. Conciliation Process:

Include provisions for voluntary conciliation under Section 10 before formal inquiry, ensuring that no monetary settlement is made.

7. Inquiry Procedure:

Set out timelines, confidentiality, fair hearing principles, cross-examination, and rights of both parties.

8. Protection Against Retaliation:

The policy must assure protection from victimization, intimidation, or retaliation against any party.

9. False or Malicious Complaints:

A balanced provision warning against false complaints, without discouraging genuine grievances.

10. Training and Awareness:

Mandate periodic POSH awareness and training for all employees and IC members.

III. Implementing the POSH Process Correctly

1. Awareness:

Conduct regular training sessions and display the POSH Policy prominently.

2. Access to Internal Committee:

Ensure employees know how to reach the IC confidentially and without fear.

3. Time-bound Inquiry:

Complete inquiries within the statutory 90-day period.

4. Documentation

Maintain detailed, confidential records of complaints, proceedings, and decisions.

5. Follow-up Action:

Implement IC recommendations swiftly and fairly.

IV. Legal Risks of Non-Compliance and Mishandling POSH Cases

1. Violation of Fundamental Rights:

Mishandling or ignoring complaints can lead to Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity) violations.

2. Breach of Natural Justice:

Denial of fair hearing, bias, or failure to follow due process exposes organizations to judicial review.

3. Reputational and Financial Damage:

Media scrutiny, employee distrust, and potential compensatory damages can follow.

4. Penalties Under the Act:

As per Section 26, non-compliance can lead to fines and even cancellation of business licenses.

V. Key Judicial Precedents

1. Dr. Kali Charan Sabat v. Union of India & Ors. (2024, MP High Court):

Held that conciliation under Section 10 must be mandatorily offered before formal inquiry if the complainant is open to it. Failure to do so can render the proceedings invalid.

2. Abraham Mathai v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Kerala HC):

Reaffirmed that a written complaint is mandatory for initiating an inquiry. Oral or anonymous complaints cannot be the sole basis for action unless there are exceptional circumstances.

3. Malabika Bhattacharjee v. Internal Complaints Committee, Vivekananda College (Supreme Court):

Stressed that confidentiality is paramount, and any breach can lead to legal action and reputational damage.

VI. Conclusion and Recommendations

Drafting and implementing a legally compliant POSH Policy is not merely a statutory obligation but a cornerstone of workplace dignity and organizational culture. Employers must:

• Draft detailed, legally accurate policies.

• Constitute and train an impartial Internal Committee.

• Follow fair, transparent processes, strictly adhering to legal timelines.

• Maintain confidentiality and prevent retaliation.

Failure to do so can result in judicial intervention, fines, reputational loss, and erosion of employee trust. Organizations must view POSH compliance as both a legal and ethical imperative, essential for a safe, respectful, and productive workplace.

Understanding Leave Laws for Employees in India: A Complete Guide.

In India, every working professional is entitled to certain types of leaves for rest, health, family, or other personal reasons. Leave laws in India are governed by both central and state-specific labor laws, which aim to strike a balance between employee welfare and employer requirements. Knowing your leave rights helps you stay compliant and ensures fair treatment at the workplace.

In this blog, we’ll explore the types of leaves, applicable laws, and key employee rights under Indian labor law.

Types of Leaves Under Indian Labor Laws

Earned Leave (EL) or Privilege Leave (PL):

Eligibility: Typically available after completing a certain number of days of employment (e.g., 240 days in a year).

Accrual: Usually 1.25 to 2 days per month, depending on state rules and company policies.

Carry Forward: Unused ELs can often be carried forward to the next year.

Encashment: Many companies allow encashment of unused ELs during employment or at resignation/retirement.

Casual Leave (CL):

• Purpose: For sudden, unforeseen circumstances like family emergencies, short travel, or minor illness.
• Allotment: Typically 7 to 10 days per year.
• Accrual: Usually granted monthly or quarterly.
• Carry Forward: Generally not allowed; unused CLs lapse at year-end.

Sick Leave (SL):

• Purpose: For health-related issues.
• Allotment: Usually 6 to 12 days per year, depending on state laws.
• Requirement: Employers may ask for a medical certificate for absences over 2-3 days.
• Carry Forward: Allowed in some states, with a cap.

Maternity Leave:

• Act: Governed by the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
• Duration: 26 weeks for the first two children, 12 weeks for the third and beyond.
• Eligibility: Female employees must have worked for at least 80 days in the 12 months prior to delivery.
• Additional Provisions: Includes benefits like nursing breaks and work-from-home options (where applicable).

Paternity Leave:

• Law: Not mandatory under Indian labor law, but some companies offer 7–15 days as part of their HR policies.
• Trend: Growing awareness is leading many organizations to include paternity leave in their benefits package.

Bereavement Leave:

• Purpose: Leave granted in the event of a death in the immediate family.
• Law: Not mandated, but offered by many employers as a gesture of compassion.

Leave Without Pay (LWP):

• When Applied: When all paid leaves are exhausted.
• Impact: May affect salary, bonus, and benefits depending on the company’s leave policy.

Key Leave Laws and Regulations in India

• Factories Act, 1948 – Governs leave entitlements for factory workers.
• Shops and Establishments Act (State-wise) – Regulates leave policies for employees in shops, offices, and commercial establishments.
• Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 – Covers maternity leave and related benefits.
• Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Requires employers to define and publish leave rules.

State-Specific Variations

Leave rules under the Shops and Establishments Act vary from state to state. For example:

• In Maharashtra, a Minimum of 21 days of earned leave annually.
• In Delhi: 15 days of earned leave with carry-forward up to 45 days.
• In Karnataka, 18 days of earned leave and 12 days of sick leave.

Employers must comply with the respective state laws in addition to central regulations.

Employer’s Role in Leave Management

Employers are required to:

• Maintain a leave register.
• Ensure fair and consistent leave policy implementation.
• Notify employees about their leave entitlements.
• Avoid penalizing employees for availing of legitimate leaves.

Many companies also use HR software to manage leave balances, automate approvals, and ensure legal compliance.

Conclusion

Understanding leave laws in India is essential for both employees and employers. While the law provides a framework, company-specific policies may offer additional benefits. As a working professional, being aware of your rights ensures you can plan time off without fear or uncertainty. As an employer, following proper leave law practices builds a healthier and more engaged workforce.

Wages Law for Labour in India: Your Right to Fair Pay

Wages are the foundation of a worker’s livelihood. In India, the government has created strong wage laws to ensure that workers, especially those in unorganised or low-paying jobs, receive fair and timely compensation. These laws protect workers from exploitation and promote social justice and economic equality.

In this blog, we’ll explore the key provisions of wage law in India, focusing on the Code on Wages, 2019, and what every employer and employee should know.

What is Wage Law?

Wage law in India refers to the rules and regulations that govern:

• Minimum wages
• Payment of wages
• Equal pay for equal work
• Timely and full payment to workers

The aim is to ensure that every worker is paid fairly and on time, regardless of the nature of work or industry.

Introduction to the Code on Wages, 2019

The Code on Wages, 2019, is one of the four new labour codes introduced by the Indian government to simplify and unify complex labour laws. It consolidates four previous laws:

1. The Payment of Wages Act, 1936
2. The Minimum Wages Act, 1948
3. The Payment of Bonus Act, 1965
4. The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976

Key Provisions of the Code on Wages

1. Minimum Wages for All Workers

• The law ensures a minimum wage for all employees, whether in the organised or unorganised sector.
• Earlier, minimum wage laws applied only to scheduled employment. Now, it applies universally.

2. National Floor Wage

• The central government will fix a national floor wage.
• States cannot set minimum wages lower than this benchmark.

3. Equal Remuneration

• The code ensures equal pay for equal work for men and women.
• It prohibits gender-based wage discrimination.

4. Timely Payment of Wages

Employers must pay wages:

• Before the 7th of the following month (for monthly wage earners)
• Before the 10th day (for weekly wage earners)
• On the last working day (for daily wage earners)

5. Mode of Payment

• Wages must be paid in coin, currency notes, bank transfer, or electronic mode.
• Cash payments are allowed only in special cases.

6. Deductions

• Only authorised deductions (like PF, taxes, fines, or loan repayments) are allowed.
• Total deductions should not exceed 50% of total wages.

Who is Covered?

The Code on Wages applies to:

• All employees in the public and private sectors
• Gig workers, platform workers, and contractual labour
• Workers across industries, from factories to shops and startups

Importance of Wage Law for Labourers

• Protects from exploitation by ensuring fair pay
• Reduces inequality between formal and informal sector workers
• Improves the quality of life for low-income workers
• Promotes industrial peace by resolving wage-related disputes

Penalties for Non-Compliance

Employers who fail to comply with wage law provisions can face:

• Fines
• Penalties
• Imprisonment in cases of severe violations

Challenges in Implementation

• Lack of awareness among workers about their wage rights
• Informal sector employers often bypass wage laws
• Inconsistent enforcement by local authorities
• Delays in rolling out the new wage code across states

Conclusion

India’s wage laws are designed to protect the dignity and rights of every worker. With the Code on Wages, 2019, the government has taken a big step toward simplifying wage regulation and promoting fairness. However, effective implementation and awareness among workers are key to making these laws truly impactful.

Hindustan Unilever Limited – Collaborative Collective Bargaining

Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) has successfully implemented a model of Interest-Based Bargaining (IBB), which emphasizes collaboration over confrontation. At its factories in Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, HUL has signed several long-term settlements with its recognized trade unions, focusing on productivity-linked incentives, flexible work structures, and comprehensive labor welfare measures.

Rather than adversarial negotiation, HUL’s industrial relations strategy includes pre-negotiation training for union leaders and HR managers, helping both sides understand each other’s goals and legal obligations. This proactive approach aligns with provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act and enhances mutual trust.

Collective bargaining at HUL includes discussions on wage structures, safety, skill enhancement, and grievance handling. The company also goes beyond statutory compliance by offering welfare schemes and skill development programs, supporting the vision of a participative work culture underpinned by labor law frameworks.

The company has avoided strikes and lockouts in recent years, making it a benchmark for stable labor relations. Agreements are drafted with detailed clauses covering layoff terms, leave entitlements, and disciplinary procedures in accordance with Standing Orders and employment law principles.

HUL’s case illustrates how employment relations rooted in legal compliance, mutual respect, and shared growth can avoid industrial disputes and foster long-term organizational commitment.

Air India – Labor Fragmentation and Frequent Strikes

Air India presents a complex case of industrial relations, marked by frequent strikes, multiple trade unions, and unresolved grievances over wage structures and promotion policies—especially post its merger with Indian Airlines. The multiplicity of unions—including pilots’, engineers’, and cabin crew associations—has fragmented representation and complicated collective bargaining.

The airline has been plagued with industrial disputes stemming from pay parity, work conditions, and operational restructuring, often leading to strikes and delays. The management has been accused of bypassing proper union negotiations and violating principles of natural justice under employment law. Disputes often land at the labour court or industrial tribunal, straining institutional capacities.

Many of these disputes involve demands for regularization of temporary staff, pay revision arrears, and working hour regulations—issues governed under the Industrial Disputes Act and relevant civil aviation standing orders. The lack of timely conciliation and arbitration by authorities has exacerbated tensions.

The company’s industrial relations machinery lacks a unified grievance redressal system. Disciplinary actions often attract charges of unfair labor practices, a violation under the Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act. Additionally, public sector norms and government control hinder flexible HR policies that private airlines enjoy.

Air India’s case demonstrates the challenges of collective bargaining in complex, bureaucratic setups and the urgent need for industrial relations reform in India’s public sector enterprises.

Bajaj Auto – Chakan Plant Wage Dispute (2013–2014)

Bajaj Auto – Chakan Plant Wage Dispute (2013–2014)

Bajaj Auto’s Chakan plant near Pune witnessed a high-profile labor dispute between June 2013 and January 2014 over a wage revision demand. The workers, represented by the Vishwa Kalyan Kamgar Sanghatana (VKKS), demanded a significant wage hike and inclusion in company stock ownership plans. The management resisted, citing business constraints and equity dilution concerns.

The dispute led to a 50-day strike, halting production and resulting in significant financial losses. The strike, which was declared legal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, demonstrated the use of collective bargaining as a tool for economic negotiation. However, the adversarial tone of the initial talks created a deadlock that could only be resolved with third-party conciliation.

The involvement of the Labour Commissioner and the state’s labor department underlines the importance of conciliation officers and the statutory framework in dispute resolution. Although Bajaj Auto initially refused to engage, mounting pressure led to a negotiated wage settlement, albeit without stock options. This partial win was seen as a validation of collective bargaining rights.

The case brought attention to the need for better labor-management communication and structured negotiation forums, as outlined in the Model Standing Orders. It also pointed to the emerging trend where employees seek not just wage parity but a stake in the company’s growth—blurring the lines between labor and capital.

This case serves as a reminder that industrial harmony is not guaranteed, even in high-profile corporates, unless collective bargaining is approached with openness, legal compliance, and a willingness to adapt to evolving worker aspirations.

Maruti Suzuki – Manesar Plant Labor Unrest (2012)

The Maruti Suzuki Manesar plant unrest in July 2012 stands as one of the most violent industrial disputes in post-liberalization India. The core issues revolved around the management's refusal to recognize a new union formed by workers—the Maruti Suzuki Workers Union (MSWU)—and the increasing use of contract labor, which was viewed as undermining job security and wage parity. 

The trigger for the incident was a disciplinary action taken against a worker, which escalated into a violent clash, resulting in the death of an HR manager and injuries to many. The situation revealed a complete breakdown in industrial relations and the failure of mechanisms under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to resolve disputes before escalation. The management claimed the existing union lacked representation of all employees, while workers alleged a denial of their right to form a trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926.

This case highlights the misuse of contract labor, often engaged under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Contract workers demanded parity in wages and working conditions, claiming violations of their statutory rights. The unrest exposed the loopholes in labor law enforcement and the need for genuine representation and dialogue.

Many workers were terminated or arrested post-incident, and the plant was shut down for nearly a month. The company was forced to tighten security and revisit its employee relations policy. The government and labor department also faced criticism for not ensuring effective conciliation or mediation through labor officers, which could have prevented escalation.

The Maruti case serves as a critical lesson on recognizing trade union rights, ensuring proper implementation of labor laws, and using structured collective bargaining to avoid industrial conflict.