Court protects female employee in POSH (sexual harassment) battle against renewable energy giant

In a major win for workplace rights, a woman employee has secured a powerful court order protecting her job while she fights a sexual harassment case against a renewable energy giant.

The case, titled [Appellant Name X] vs. The New Delhi-based company and others, began when the victim filed a complaint on May 13, 2025, against a high-ranking official (the Head of Compliance).

She alleged several incidents of sexual harassment by the senior officials, including during a company event in May 2024, one of the officials — in an inebriated state — forcefully tried to outrage her modesty.

She also accused him of stalking and inappropriate touching. Crucially, she alleged caste-based bias, claiming his behaviour became more aggressive after he learned she was from a Scheduled Caste background.

After an internal inquiry concluded in November 2025, the company’s committee found the official guilty of “unwelcome physical contact.” However, they only gave him a written warning and sent him on paid leave. The victim employee was further subjected to sexual harassment by the CEO of the company.

Meanwhile, the survivor alleged that she faced a “digital lockout” in February 2026, when her office email was blocked, and was informed via text on March 6, 2026, not to come to the office. The survivor, through her advocate Apoorva Pandey, appealed and argued before the Industrial Tribunal at Rouse Avenue, and Judge Manjusha Wadhwa issued orders on March 12 and April 17, 2026, to ensure justice.

The judge ordered that the company, situated at Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase — III, New Delhi, cannot fire or punish the survivor while the case is ongoing, ensuring her livelihood is protected.

The company argued the court had no power because she worked for a subsidiary. The judge rejected this, ruling that the parent company is responsible for the safety of all its employees.

The court took note of the “email blocking” and “office barring,” warning the company that such “shadow retaliation” would not be allowed.

In a parallel development, an FIR at Police Station Mehrauli, which invokes serious charges under Sections 75 (Sexual Harassment) and 78 (Stalking) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), was registered against the company and the two senior officials, and due to a lack of investigation, the victim employee approached the court for monitoring the investigation. Apoorva Pandey, counsel for the complainant (victim), argued that no investigation of the CEO has been done, and he has since left the country.

The case was listed before the Saket Mahila Court. Judicial Magistrate First Class Neetika Kapoor expressed sharp dissatisfaction with the police investigation on April 17, 2026.

Upon learning that the accused, who is the Global CEO of the company, had left the country, the court ordered the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) to personally supervise the investigation and file a report.

The court noted that while the co-accused (Head of Compliance and Company Secretary) has joined the investigation, the lack of progress regarding the CEO necessitated high-level monitoring.

In the Rouse Avenue Tribunal, the case is directed against three primary respondents: the Company (Respondent No. 1), the Head of Secretarial and Global Compliance (Respondent No. 2/the accused), and the Global Chief Executive Officer, named in his capacity as the employer (Respondent No. 3). Additionally, the company’s subsidiary has been impleaded to ensure the court’s orders are fully enforceable.

Simultaneously, the criminal proceedings at Saket Mahila Court target the individuals involved in the alleged misconduct and subsequent intimidation.