GS Paper 4 20 marks · 250w 20 min Hard
An apparel manufacturing company having large number of women employees was losing sales due to various factors. The company hired a reputed marketing executive, who increased the volume of sales within a short span of time. However, some unconfirmed reports came up regarding his indulgence in sexual harassment at the work place. After sometime, a woman employee lodged a formal complaint to the management against the marketing executive about sexually harassing her. Faced with the company’s indifference in not taking cognizance of her grievance, she lodged an FIR with the Police. Realizing the sensitivity and gravity of the situation, the company called the woman employee to negotiate. In that she was offered a hefty sum of money to withdraw the complaint and the FIR and also give in writing that the marketing executive is not involved in the case. Identify the ethical issues involved in this case. What options are available to the woman employee?
Subtopic: Case Study · workplace sexual harassment and cover-up
How to structure your answer
Brief facts → stakeholders → ethical issues in the case → options available to the woman employee with merits/demerits → recommended course of action grounded in the PoSH framework.
Detailed model answer
298 words · target 250 words · 20 min
Facts
A star marketing executive of an apparel firm is accused of sexually harassing a woman employee. The company ignores her complaint; she files an FIR. The company then offers her a large sum to withdraw the complaint and FIR and to certify in writing that the executive is innocent.
Stakeholders
- The aggrieved woman employee.
- The accused marketing executive.
- The company management.
- Other women employees and future victims.
- Society and the rule of law.
Ethical issues involved
- Violation of dignity and safety of a woman at the workplace — a breach of her fundamental right to a safe working environment.
- Company's dereliction: statutory duty to act on the complaint was ignored, valuing profit and the executive's sales over an employee's dignity.
- Bribery and obstruction of justice: paying to withdraw an FIR and to falsify an exoneration is witness tampering and perversion of justice.
- Conflict of interest: commercial gain versus ethical and legal obligation.
Options available to the woman employee
- Accept the money and withdraw: financially tempting but sacrifices her dignity, condones the crime, endangers other women and is itself unethical — unacceptable.
- Reject the offer and pursue the FIR alone: upright but leaves her isolated against a resourceful employer.
- Reject the bribe and pursue all lawful remedies (preferred): continue the criminal case, and simultaneously invoke the workplace mechanism.
Recommended course of action
- Firmly refuse the bribe and the false exoneration.
- File a complaint before the Internal Committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013; if the company lacks one, approach the Local Committee.
- Pursue the FIR and cooperate with police; document the bribe offer as evidence of tampering.
- Seek support from the National/State Commission for Women, women's rights bodies and legal aid.
Courage backed by law protects not just her dignity but that of every woman who follows.
What an examiner expects to see
- Central ethical issue: violation of a woman's dignity and right to a safe workplace.
- Company's dereliction: ignoring its statutory duty to act on the harassment complaint.
- Offer of money to withdraw the FIR and falsely exonerate the accused is bribery and obstruction of justice.
- Conflict of interest: the firm privileges the executive's sales over an employee's rights.
- Woman's best option: reject the bribe and pursue both criminal and PoSH Act remedies.
- Invoke the Internal Committee (or Local Committee) under the PoSH Act, 2013.
- Seek support from NCW/SCW, women's organisations and legal aid; preserve evidence of tampering.
Concrete cases, schemes and judgments
- Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) — the guidelines that preceded the PoSH Act.
- Internal Committee (IC) and Local Committee (LC) mechanisms under the Act.
- National and State Commissions for Women as support institutions.
- Provisions on witness tampering and obstruction of justice under criminal law.
Terminology to weave into the answer
PoSH Act 2013Vishaka guidelinesInternal Committeedignity of womenobstruction of justicewitness tampering