Ms.

Amyukta (Conciliator):

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you all for attending today’s session. Let me begin by clarifying that this is not a
courtroom proceeding, but a conciliation session under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is
voluntary, confidential, and non-adversarial. Our aim is not to assign blame or deliver a verdict,
but to promote dialogue and facilitate a fair and amicable resolution.

The matter concerns Ms. Chandana, a senior supervisor at Falnir Textiles Pvt. Ltd., who has
raised serious concerns under the POSH Act against Mr. Laksharth, her shift manager. She
alleges repeated verbal harassment, gender-based remarks, and inappropriate messages. While
the company’s Internal Committee found the evidence inconclusive, Ms. Chandana has rejected
the report and expressed a desire to take further legal action. The union has intervened, seeking
a public apology, improved internal grievance procedures, and sensitisation training.

Both parties have now agreed to explore resolution through conciliation, and I commend them
for that. My role is to remain neutral and to help foster constructive dialogue. I urge all present
to speak honestly, but also respectfully. Let us approach this process with openness and a shared
commitment to dignity and fairness.

We’ll begin with statements from both parties, followed by counsels and the union. Then we
will move into a joint discussion to explore possible solutions.

Ms. Chandana, you may begin.

Ms. Chandana (Complainant):

(Takes a breath, calm but deeply emotional)
Thank you… This is not easy for me. But pretending to be okay for the last several months—
that was even harder.

I’ve been with Falnir Textiles for over eleven years. I joined as a young woman, worked my
way up, trained more than 150 other women, and never once did I think I’d have to sit here and
defend my dignity.

But for the past year, I have felt anything but respected.

Mr. Laksharth, my shift manager, made sure of that. It started with small comments—“Women
are too emotional,” “You’re too soft to be a leader,” “Let’s see how long madam survives this
week.” People laughed. I didn’t.

Once, in front of a new recruit, he joked, “Don’t worry, she cries every week—it’s hormonal.”
I wanted to disappear. I had to stand there, humiliated, and still be the supervisor, still lead that
team.
Then came the WhatsApp messages. Late at night. “Still awake?”, “Hope you miss this shift
after your transfer.” Smiley faces. Emojis. I never replied. I didn’t want to escalate. But inside,
I was shrinking. My phone became a source of anxiety. My workplace—once a space of
purpose—became something I feared.

When I reported it to the Internal Committee, I was asked: Do you have proof? Screenshots?
Did you tell him to stop?
No one came forward—not because I lied, but because they were afraid. And then came the
real blow: they offered to shift me.
Me.
As if I was the problem.

That moment broke something in me. After everything I had given—my time, my energy, my
loyalty—my safety was treated as a logistical inconvenience.

(Pauses, voice firm but strained)

I didn’t come here for sympathy. I came because I believe this isn’t just about me. It’s about
how easy it is to silence a woman when the evidence isn’t loud enough for others. It’s about
how systems protect comfort, not justice.
And it’s about how we, as women in the workforce, are still expected to carry shame for the
things done to us.

I’m not asking for revenge. I’m asking for acknowledgment. For accountability. For a
workplace where the burden of proof doesn’t fall on the one already hurting.

I showed up today not because I’m unafraid—but because I’m tired of being afraid.

All I ask… is to be treated with the dignity I’ve earned.

Mr. Laksharth (Respondent):

(Takes a breath, visibly tense but trying to stay respectful)
Thank you, ma’am. I want to start by saying—I’m not perfect. I have flaws, yes. I have a strict
way of working. But I never imagined I’d be sitting here, defending myself against something
as serious as this.

I’ve been with Falnir Textiles for nearly fifteen years. I’ve managed over twenty supervisors,
men and women. I push people hard, yes, because the work demands it. But never—never—
have I been accused of harassment. Not once. And now, suddenly, I’m being painted as
someone I don’t even recognise.

Yes, I’ve said things in the heat of the moment. I’ve commented on missed deadlines, I’ve
pushed for faster output. Maybe I said someone was being too emotional. But in a high-pressure
environment, we all lose our temper sometimes. It was never personal. It was never about
gender.

(Pauses, voice strained)

The WhatsApp messages… That’s the part that hurts. Because those were not private chats—
they were work-related. I text multiple team leads late at night when orders are urgent. I’ve
messaged, “Still awake?” to others as well. We had a German client waiting on confirmation.
It wasn’t flirting. It wasn’t an advance. And there’s no vulgarity in any of those messages—
none.

But now, everything I did is being seen through a different lens. It’s like the intention doesn’t
matter anymore—only perception does.

(Tone softens, more vulnerable)

Look, I didn’t know she felt this way. I wish I had. I wish she had told me directly. I would’ve
backed off immediately. I never touched her. I never threatened her. I never called her names
or tried to humiliate her on purpose.
And yet… here I am, being treated like I’m guilty of something I don’t even fully understand.

My team is hesitant around me. My name is being whispered in corridors. My own integrity,
built over a decade, is now under question.

(Pauses, voice faltering slightly)

I’m not here to win or lose. I’m here because I need people to know—I’m not the man she’s
describing. And if something I said or did made her uncomfortable, then I am truly sorry. Not
just because of the consequences, but because I never meant for this to happen.

But I also want my voice to matter. I want my name not to be destroyed because of
misinterpretation.
This situation—this conflict—it has wounded both of us. And I want it to end, not with
bitterness, but with clarity.

(Steps back, visibly distressed but composed)

Confrontation (Dialogue Between Parties)

Ms. Chandana:
You say it was equal—but I was the only one who got messages at night. The only one you
mocked in front of juniors. That’s not equality—it’s targeted humiliation.
Mr. laksharth:
I mock people when work is sloppy. You weren’t performing that month, and I pushed. I won’t
apologise for setting high standards!
Ms. chandana:
That’s not discipline—that’s intimidation. I wasn’t underperforming, I was avoiding you. And
everyone knew why.

[Link] (Conciliator):
Enough. This is painful, yes—but let us remember: our goal here is not to win, but to resolve.
Let’s hear from the counsels now.

Complainant’s Counsel – Namitha

(Firm, articulate, and composed)

Thank you.
This is not merely a personal grievance—it is a legal issue under the POSH Act, which defines
harassment not only in terms of physical misconduct but also includes verbal, emotional, and
psychological behaviour that creates a hostile work environment.

My client, Ms. Chandana, has been a committed and capable employee of Falnir Textiles for
over 11 years. Her work speaks for itself. But over the past several months, her dignity at work
has been repeatedly undermined through inappropriate comments, late-night messages, and
dismissive treatment—none of which should be normalised in a professional setting.

Let me be clear: harassment is not defined by vulgarity alone. It is defined by impact. A pattern
of unwelcome behaviour, especially within a workplace power hierarchy, is enough to invoke
the protections of the law.

The Internal Committee, with due respect, failed to discharge its responsibility adequately. It
relied too heavily on the absence of witnesses, without asking why no one stepped forward. It
lacked a trauma-sensitive approach and conducted an inquiry that felt more like an
interrogation than a safe space.

We are not seeking retribution. We are seeking accountability and change.

We respectfully request the following:

1. A formal written apology from Mr. Laksharth, acknowledging the harm caused, irrespective
of intent.

2. A guarantee that Ms. Chandana will not be transferred or demoted, and will retain her role
with full dignity.

3. A review and strengthening of the Internal Committee process, including third-party

participation to ensure neutrality.

4. And most importantly, regular gender sensitisation workshops, not as a symbolic gesture,
but as a meaningful step toward workplace reform.

This is a chance for the company to choose responsibility over reputation. To build not just a
factory of output, but a workplace of dignity.

(Sits down calmly)

Company Counsel – Ankitha

(Calm, composed, and legally precise)

Thank you.
We are here in the spirit of resolution, not resistance. The company recognises that this has
been a difficult and emotional process for all involved. We affirm that Ms. Chandana’s
experience and well-being matter, and we also maintain that procedural integrity and fairness
must be preserved.

The Internal Committee conducted an inquiry in accordance with the POSH Act, and while no
conclusive evidence of misconduct was found—largely due to the absence of corroborative
witnesses—we do not dismiss Ms. Chandana’s distress. We acknowledge that the perception
of bias and the emotional toll of the process are real, and must be addressed with sensitivity,
not defensiveness.

The offer of transfer was never meant as a punitive action—it was intended to minimise
discomfort in the workplace. However, given how it was received, the company is willing to
immediately revoke the transfer order.

We are open to steps that reinforce trust and restore a respectful environment. As such, the
company proposes the following:

1. A written statement from Mr. Laksharth, expressing regret for any discomfort unintentionally
caused.

2. A comprehensive revision of the POSH policy, with active participation from the employees’
union.

3. Quarterly gender sensitisation workshops for all managerial staff, to ensure awareness and
respectful conduct.

4. A commitment to review the IC’s internal protocols, including the potential inclusion of an
external member for future cases, to enhance impartiality.

However, we must respectfully decline the request for a public apology, as it suggests
culpability without a legal finding. Such a step would undermine both the presumption of
innocence and the outcome of the existing inquiry.

Our goal today is not to defend one party over the other, but to support a safe, fair, and dignified
workplace for all employees. We believe these steps reflect both legal prudence and human
empathy, and we hope they are seen in that light.

(Nods respectfully and resumes seat)

Labour Union Representative – Bhavishya Shree

(Firm, empathetic tone)
Let’s be clear—this isn’t just about Chandana and Laksharth. It’s about what happens when
women workers speak up and the structures meant to protect them fall short. The current IC
lacks independence. Voluntary training won’t change systemic issues—it must be mandatory.

Our demands are straightforward:

1. Union participation in redrafting the POSH policy.

2. A safe, anonymous grievance mechanism.

3. Clear escalation protocols beyond the IC.

We’re not here to punish—we’re here to protect dignity and demand accountability. And if
silence continues, we’ll take this beyond these walls.

Facilitated Debate and Mediation

Conciliator – Ms. Amyukta

(Measured and empathetic)

Let’s now move from confrontation to conversation. We are not here to assign guilt, but to
acknowledge impact, recognise harm, and chart a path forward. Let’s try to speak not just as
professionals—but as people.

Amyukta:
Laksharth, are you willing to acknowledge that your actions—regardless of intent—caused
discomfort to Chandana?

Laksharth:
(Pauses, visibly reflective)
Yes. I didn’t realise it at the time, but I see now how my words and messages could have made
her uncomfortable. I regret that. It wasn’t my intention, but I understand how it was received.

Amyukta:
Chandana, would you be open to accepting a written statement of regret—not as an excuse, but
as a first step toward accountability?

Chandana:
(Firm, but composed)
I’m not seeking an admission of guilt. I’m seeking change. If it’s a sincere acknowledgment of
the impact—not just intent—I will accept it. But it must mean something.

Amyukta:
Namitha, Ankitha—can you work together on a joint statement that acknowledges harm
without becoming adversarial?
Namitha:
Yes. As long as it reflects Chandana’s lived experience and the emotional toll, not just neutral
corporate language.

Ankitha:
Agreed. We can phrase it carefully to avoid legal implications, but still honour her experience.

Amyukta:
Bhavishya Shree, the union has voiced strong concerns. If the company commits to gender-
sensitisation training, POSH policy reform, and shared oversight, would that address your
broader demands?

Bhavishya Shree:
Yes—if the measures are binding and implemented from the next quarter. This isn’t just about
one case—it’s about making sure workers like Chandana feel safe coming forward.

Amyukta:
Laksharth, would you be open to attending training and reflecting on how certain remarks may
reflect unconscious bias?

Laksharth:
(Genuinely)
Yes. I accept that some of my words were insensitive. That’s on me. I will attend the training.
I want to do better.

Amyukta:
Chandana, what would help you feel safe and respected again in the workplace?

Chandana:
Retaining my current position without the threat of transfer. Clear support systems. And
knowing this won’t happen to another woman in silence.

Amyukta:
That is fair. Namitha, Ankitha—can we formalise this through a joint declaration on workplace
dignity, co-signed by the company and the union?

Namitha:
Yes. And we propose a three-month review to assess implementation.

Ankitha:
The company will issue the declaration and partner with the union on policy revision.

Bhavishya Shree:
We will hold the company accountable to it—and support every worker who speaks up.

Amyukta:
Then let today mark the start of institutional change, not just individual healing. Thank you,
everyone, for showing that dialogue—even when difficult—can move us forward.
---

Closing Remarks by Conciliator:

Ms. Amyukta:
Let us close this session not with anger, but with the hope of evolution. Thank you all for your
courage, cooperation, and commitment. This is not the end of a case, but the beginning of a
shift towards a better and more respectful culture in our workplace.

Summary of Final Agreement

The following terms were agreed upon in the settlement:

1. Written Apology: Laksharth will submit a formal written expression of regret to Chandana.

2. Reinstatement: Chandana's transfer will be revoked, and she will be fully reinstated with an
acknowledgment of her concerns.

3. Reconstitution of Internal Committee: The Internal Committee (IC) will be restructured to

include an external observer.

4. Quarterly Training: Quarterly training sessions will be held with union representation.

5. Workplace Dignity Policy: A joint policy on workplace dignity will be drafted with input
from HR, the union, and external advisors.

6. Review: A follow-up meeting will take place in 3 months to review the progress.

The conciliator, Ms. Amyukta, concluded the session with a statement emphasizing that this
agreement marks the beginning of cultural evolution within the workplace. The parties
expressed their agreement, and the session was closed.