Wolves still stalk the workplace for prey

How would you react if a colleague sent you an e-mail titled ‘team work’ showing a picture of three men in a toilet helping each other urinate or flaunted pictures of female strippers in office?

Some of you may laugh it off, but for Malvika Mehta (name changed) a former director of leading consulting firm, these
incidents are part of the sexual harassment complaint she lodged with the police on July 16 against eight employees of the firm.

Though the main charge of outraging her modesty is against the head of financial advisory services and senior partner of the firm, Mehta has named six other senior management members of abetting the harassment and creating a sexually hostile work environment.

It was on August 13, 1997, that the Supreme Court passed the Vishaka judgment defining sexual harassment at the workplace and laid down guidelines to prevent such incidents. The order was aimed at enforcing the basic human right of gender equality.

Ten years later, the nature of harassment now includes emails and SMSes — and the attitude of most employers remains apathetic.

Mehta has had to file a police complaint against the firm for not even having a sexual harassment committee to look into her complaint, as mandated by the Vishaka judgment.

“Our experience shows that the implementation of the Vishaka guidelines is poor across the country,” said Anagha Sarpotdar of the India Centre for Human Rights and Law (ICHRL).

The NGO is organising a week-long awareness campaign against sexual harassment at workplace starting on Monday to mark the 10 years of the pronouncement of the Vishaka guidelines.

In the public sector too, the situation is no better. Anupama Joshi (name changed), 50, a Central Railway employee, was transferred to Bhusawal after she complained about her senior calling her to his cabin and asking her to “satisfy” and “please” him.

The committee, which looked into her allegations, dismissed her complaint as “not tenable” because of her “non-cooperative and aggressive” attitude.

The committee’s report, however, failed to mention the reasons why she did not turn up for the hearings — on one of the dates fixed for a hearing, Joshi’s relative fractured her fingers and the other date coincided with the 26/7 deluge.

Since 1998, ICHRL has received only 50 complaints regarding sexual harassment at workplace. “The victimisation of those who speak up against such incidents often deters others from filing complaints. Many women prefer to quit their jobs when faced with such incidents,” said ICHRL’s Snehal Velkar.

The Protection of Women against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, 2007, does raise hopes as it seeks to address issues such as providing compensation to victims, imposing a fine on employers for flouting the provisions and covers even the unorganised sector.

But activists want to increase its scope to cover students and harassment at workplace by a third party or an outsider, like at hospitals and public offices.