I have observed in many companies with small setup have their CEO being part of Internal committee. to mu understanding CEO/MD cannot be part of the IC. please confirm.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
3From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If the CEO is a woman employee of the company, then they can be part of the committee. Please find below the extract for better understanding
2. The Internal Committee shall consist of the following members to be nominated by the employer, namely:
a. A Presiding Officer who shall be a woman employed at a senior level at the workplace from amongst the employees:
Provided that in case a senior-level woman employee is not available, the Presiding Officer shall be nominated from other offices or administrative units of the workplace referred to in sub-section (l):
Provided further that in case the other offices or administrative units of the workplace do not have a senior-level woman employee, the Presiding Officer shall be nominated from any other workplace of the same employer or other department or organization;
b. Not less than two members from amongst employees preferably committed to the cause of women or who have had experience in social work or have legal knowledge;
c. One member from amongst non-governmental organizations or associations committed to the cause of women or a person familiar with the issues relating to sexual harassment:
Provided that at least one-half of the total members so nominated shall be women.
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
2. The Internal Committee shall consist of the following members to be nominated by the employer, namely:
a. A Presiding Officer who shall be a woman employed at a senior level at the workplace from amongst the employees:
Provided that in case a senior-level woman employee is not available, the Presiding Officer shall be nominated from other offices or administrative units of the workplace referred to in sub-section (l):
Provided further that in case the other offices or administrative units of the workplace do not have a senior-level woman employee, the Presiding Officer shall be nominated from any other workplace of the same employer or other department or organization;
b. Not less than two members from amongst employees preferably committed to the cause of women or who have had experience in social work or have legal knowledge;
c. One member from amongst non-governmental organizations or associations committed to the cause of women or a person familiar with the issues relating to sexual harassment:
Provided that at least one-half of the total members so nominated shall be women.
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Jurisdiction for Inquiry Against the Employer
The jurisdiction to initiate an inquiry on a complaint against the head of the organization or the employer lies with the Local Committee. If the CEO is the employer, the complaint against the person should be filed with the Local Committee. The Internal Committee (IC) has no role in such cases.
Scenarios for Local Committee Involvement
Local Committee is constituted to deal with the following scenarios:
1. Where the employee strength is less than 10 and it is not possible to constitute an Internal Committee.
2. When the complaint is against the employer.
Nodal officers are appointed at block, taluka, tehsil level, or at ward, municipality level who can receive complaints and should forward the same to the Local Committee within seven days. The District Officer has the powers to constitute the Local Committee as prescribed under Section 7 of the SHWWPPR Act 2013.
Who is the Employer According to the Act?
Section 2(g) of the SHWWPPR Act 2013 defines the term employer. Broadly, it can be understood from the definition that an employer is any person responsible for the management, supervision, and control of the workplace. "Management" includes the person or board or committee responsible for the formulation and administration of policies for such an organization; the person discharging contractual obligations with respect to his or her employees.
Kindly contact for clarification.
Thank you
[Email Removed For Privacy Reasons]
(Bangalore)
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The jurisdiction to initiate an inquiry on a complaint against the head of the organization or the employer lies with the Local Committee. If the CEO is the employer, the complaint against the person should be filed with the Local Committee. The Internal Committee (IC) has no role in such cases.
Scenarios for Local Committee Involvement
Local Committee is constituted to deal with the following scenarios:
1. Where the employee strength is less than 10 and it is not possible to constitute an Internal Committee.
2. When the complaint is against the employer.
Nodal officers are appointed at block, taluka, tehsil level, or at ward, municipality level who can receive complaints and should forward the same to the Local Committee within seven days. The District Officer has the powers to constitute the Local Committee as prescribed under Section 7 of the SHWWPPR Act 2013.
Who is the Employer According to the Act?
Section 2(g) of the SHWWPPR Act 2013 defines the term employer. Broadly, it can be understood from the definition that an employer is any person responsible for the management, supervision, and control of the workplace. "Management" includes the person or board or committee responsible for the formulation and administration of policies for such an organization; the person discharging contractual obligations with respect to his or her employees.
Kindly contact for clarification.
Thank you
[Email Removed For Privacy Reasons]
(Bangalore)
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Why the CEO/MD in an Establishment/Workplace Need Not Be a Member or Presiding Officer of ICC (Internal Complaints Committee) - Points to Ponder
The rationale behind the aforesaid proposition includes the following:
i) The term "Employer" connotes, means, and includes such a person who has "ultimate control over the affairs of the Establishment." Going by this definition, description, and meaning, the term "Employees as a cadre" do not have the "prerogatives," "privileges," or the ultimate "authority" delegated to them as in the sole case of the person designated as Employer. The official status of the aforesaid two separate identities in the hierarchical organization was meant to be distinct/different.
ii) The singular person designated as Employer in respect of any Establishment for the purpose of liability before the laws of the land and accountability before the statutes compliance, or for that matter for levying penalties, is the one sole person as far as discharging Employers' duties under Section 19 of the SHWW (P, P & R) Act 2013 and Constitution of the ICC and Nominating the ICC Members are concerned.
The Employer is the singular person who is liable to "monitor" the timely submission of the Reports by the ICC, such as the Annual Statutory Report (Rule 14) and the ICC Inquiry Reports with findings or conciliation settlement report or various recommendations from the ICC.
Keeping the said "Rationale" in view and in view of the special legal status legally accorded to the person discharging the duties of Employer, it is expedient that she or he ought not self-nominate himself/herself either as a Member or Presiding Officer of the ICC, which once constituted under Section 4, exists and operates/functions as an independent legal entity uninfluenced by any external or internal interference or influence whatsoever.
Further, the induction of a non-employee outsider as Member (External) on the ICC was intended to ensure an extra modicum of independence of the ICC, and once so constituted, the ICC shall not report to or be subservient to anyone, including the Employer, except the laws applicable to the functioning of the ICC.
Kritarth Team of Special Educators, as defined in the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder, earnestly accepts the said "Rationale" as the most rational initiative/step in the right direction of doing justice to the cause of providing protection to women from Sexual Harassment at the Workplace, which remains the objective of the Act 14 of 2013.
We look forward to a healthy tete-a-tete on the matter.
Regards, Team Kritarth
[Email Removed For Privacy Reasons]
2nd June 2017
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The rationale behind the aforesaid proposition includes the following:
i) The term "Employer" connotes, means, and includes such a person who has "ultimate control over the affairs of the Establishment." Going by this definition, description, and meaning, the term "Employees as a cadre" do not have the "prerogatives," "privileges," or the ultimate "authority" delegated to them as in the sole case of the person designated as Employer. The official status of the aforesaid two separate identities in the hierarchical organization was meant to be distinct/different.
ii) The singular person designated as Employer in respect of any Establishment for the purpose of liability before the laws of the land and accountability before the statutes compliance, or for that matter for levying penalties, is the one sole person as far as discharging Employers' duties under Section 19 of the SHWW (P, P & R) Act 2013 and Constitution of the ICC and Nominating the ICC Members are concerned.
The Employer is the singular person who is liable to "monitor" the timely submission of the Reports by the ICC, such as the Annual Statutory Report (Rule 14) and the ICC Inquiry Reports with findings or conciliation settlement report or various recommendations from the ICC.
Keeping the said "Rationale" in view and in view of the special legal status legally accorded to the person discharging the duties of Employer, it is expedient that she or he ought not self-nominate himself/herself either as a Member or Presiding Officer of the ICC, which once constituted under Section 4, exists and operates/functions as an independent legal entity uninfluenced by any external or internal interference or influence whatsoever.
Further, the induction of a non-employee outsider as Member (External) on the ICC was intended to ensure an extra modicum of independence of the ICC, and once so constituted, the ICC shall not report to or be subservient to anyone, including the Employer, except the laws applicable to the functioning of the ICC.
Kritarth Team of Special Educators, as defined in the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder, earnestly accepts the said "Rationale" as the most rational initiative/step in the right direction of doing justice to the cause of providing protection to women from Sexual Harassment at the Workplace, which remains the objective of the Act 14 of 2013.
We look forward to a healthy tete-a-tete on the matter.
Regards, Team Kritarth
[Email Removed For Privacy Reasons]
2nd June 2017
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Membership of the Internal Complaints Committee.docx
Sexual Harassment of women at workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act 2013.pdf