After the second world war, the adoption of Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, marked an important step towards recognizing equal rights and freedoms for all human beings, irrespective of their gender, color, race[1]. Both India and Canada endorsed these principles and introduced legal safeguards to promote equality and dignity. Despite these legal recognitions, gender – based discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace continue to persist in workplaces. This reflect a significant gap between legal recognition and practical implementation of rights.
According to world health organization, nearly 1 in 3 women worldwide has experienced physical or sexual harassment during her lifetime[2]. This highlights the urgent need for robust and effective legal mechanisms to address workplace harassment and ensure safer environments.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF WORKPLACE HARASSMENT IN INDIA
In 2013, the legislature of India enacted the act “ THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN AT WORKPLACE ( PREVENTION, PROHIBITION AND REDRESSAL ) ACT to provide protection against sexual harassment at workplaces and to establish mechanisms for the prevention and redressal of the complaints[3]. Under Section 2(n) of the POSH act, Sexual harassment includes behaviors like making physical contacts, demanding sexual favors, making sexually colored remarks, showing pornography or any verbal or non – verbal conduct of sexual nature[4]. The act broadly recognizes different forms of verbal, non- verbal, physical harassment faced by the women in workplaces. However, the mere existence of legislation is not sufficient without effective implementation. Proper enforcement of the law implementation and the security of the complainants during complaint process remain significant concerns. In addition, the legislature primarily focuses on women and does not adequately address harassment faced by men at workplaces. According to a study by National commission for Women from 2022, 1.4% of males in India has experienced sexual harassment and 3000 cases of sexual assault on men were reported in India during the year[5]. In Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan(1997), the Supreme Court after identifying a legal vacuum on workplace sexual harassment, laid down guidelines addressing workplace harassment drawing upon the constitutional guarantees(Articles 14, 15, 19, 21) along-with international treaties such as CEDAW(Convention on the Elimination of all forms of discrimination against women)[6].Despite these developments, certain limitations remain within Indian legal framework.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF WORKPLACE HARASSMENT IN CANADA
In Canada, the workplace harassment is primarily regulated under Part II of the Canada Labour Code[7]. The enforcement of labour and employment laws in Canada is carried out by the Federal, provincial and territorial governments. the code defines workplace harassment and violence as any action, conduct or comment, including those of a sexual nature, that could reasonably be expected to cause offense, mental, emotional or physical harm caused to an employee[8]. Unlike the Indian framework, the Canadian approach is broader and more general – neutral, as it extends protection to all the employees irrespective of gender. In addition, Ontario human rights code recognizes the right of the employee to be free from harassment and discrimination on several protected grounds, including race, ancestry, origin, citizenship, color, both gender expression and identity, creed, age, record of offenses, marital status, family status or disability and sex or sexual orientation, marital status or family status[9]. Further reforms were introduced through Bill C-65 which came into force on January 1, 2021[10].The legislation amended Part II of the Canada Labour code and strengthened workplace harassment and violence prevention mechanisms. It expanded the scope of workplace harassment by including discriminatory conduct based on the prohibited grounds of discrimination identified in the Canadian Human Rights act such as race, national or ethnic origin, sex, religion, color, marital status, family status, and disability[11]. The act also imposed stricter obligations upon employers to prevent and address workplace harassment. Thus, the Canadian legal framework adopts a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to workplace harassment by emphasizing equality, prevention and protection for all employees.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
A comparative study of workplace harassment laws in India and Canada reveals significant differences in their legal approaches and enforcement mechanisms. Although India has enacted stringent legislation through the POSH act[12] and provides constitutional protection against discrimination, underreporting of workplace harassment remains a major concern. Reports suggest that a large percentage of women in India do not report incidents of sexual harassment concerns regarding retaliation, social stigma and unequal workplace hierarchies. This demonstrates the mere enactment of laws is insufficient without effective implementation and institutional support.
In contrast, Canada adopts a more preventive and compliance oriented framework. While the Indian model is largely complaint driven, the Canadian approach emphasizes employer accountability, workplace prevention policies, and external regulatory oversight[13]. In addition, Canada has a comparatively higher female workplace participation rate, reflecting broader workplace inclusion and stronger institutional safeguards.
Judicial interpretation has also shaped the legal position in both countries. In Vishakha vs State of Rajasthan, the Hon’ble Supreme court of India, recognized sexual harassment as an infringement of fundamental rights protected under Part III of the constitution[14]. Similarly, in Janzen vs Platy Enterprises Ltd., (1989) 1 S.C.R. 1252, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Canada held that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination[15].
Another important distinction lies in the scope of protection provided by both legal systems. Canadian laws adopt a more gender neutral approach, extend protection to men, women and LGBTQ+ individuals, thereby aligning with contemporary understandings of workplace equality and inclusivity[16]. In comparison, the Indian legal framework primarily focuses on women due to their historical and societal vulnerability. However, the exclusion of men and LGBTQ+ individuals raises concern regarding gender neutrality and inclusiveness.
Furthermore, Canadian legislation expressly includes “violence” within workplace protection laws, thereby broadening the scope of prohibited conduct beyond sexual harassment alone. It addresses physical violence, psychological harm, and discriminatory conduct in workplaces. On the other hand, the Indian framework remains comparatively narrower, and is primarily centered on sexual harassment faced by women.
Therefore, although India has made significant legal advancements in addressing workplace harassment, challenges relating to implementation, inclusivity, enforcement continue to persist. In contrast, Canada’s broader, preventive and compliance driven framework provides a more comprehensive approach towards workplace safety and equality.
CRITICAL EVALUATION
The Courts in India have consistently insisted upon the constitution of internal complaints committee(ICC) to ensure effective implementation of workplace harassment laws. In The Internal Complaints committee of Tata Consultancy Services vs Tanuja Priya Bhat, the Bombay High Court observed that employers are under an obligation to provide safe working environment, and ensure effective functioning of the ICC[17]. Despite such judicial emphasis, the practical effectiveness of Indian Framework continues to remain questionable. In practice, many organizations either fail to constitute ICCs or could not ensure independent or impartial functioning. As a result, the effectiveness of the complaint redressal mechanism is significantly weakened. Furthermore, a large number of women continue to avoid reporting due to social stigma, fear of retaliation, and workplace power hierarchies.
Another major concern is the lack of awareness regarding the rights available under the POSH Act.[18] Employer frequently fail to conduct adequate awareness programs and training sessions, reflecting weak regulatory oversight. In several cases, Inquiries are not completed within the prescribed time period, which further undermines the confidence in the redressal system.
Additionally, Courts and authorities rarely impose the penalties on non- complaint employers, reducing the deterrent effect of the legislation.
In contrast, Canada has adopted a more proactive and compliance – oriented approach towards workplace sexual harassment prevention. Canadian laws place affirmative obligations upon employers to formulate prevention policies, conducting awareness programmes, establish mandatory training programmes and establish mechanism for reporting and investigation.[19] The presence of external oversight also contributes towards greater independence and neutrality in the functioning of complaint mechanisms.
Moreover, the emphasis on a timely resolution of complaints helps maintain the confidence of the victims in the system. Canada also benefits from comparatively centralized reporting and governmental monitoring whereas, the absence of a uniform reporting structure in India often results in fragmented data collection and inconsistent implementation practices.
CONCLUSION
A safe workplace environment not only ensures the mental and physical well-being of an employees but also contributes towards greater productivity, efficiency and innovation within organizations.
Although, India has taken crucial legislative steps to address workplace harassment through the POSH Act and constitutional protections,[20] the practical effectiveness of these measures continues to remain uncertain due to challenges relating to implementation and enforcement. The Indian framework really needs to greater emphasis on pro -active and preventive mechanisms similar to those adopted in Canada.[21] Strengthening awareness programmes, ensuring employer accountability, and establishing effective monitoring mechanisms can significantly reduce incidents of workplace harassment. In addition, the adoption of more inclusive and gender- neutral protections may help address concerns relating to equality and broader workplace safety.
India would benefit from developing a centralized reporting system and monitoring system similar to the Canadian model in order to ensure better assessment, transparency, and consistency in implementation. Canada’s compliance-driven approach, which poses pro-active obligations upon employers, demonstrates a more comprehensive framework for ensuring workplace safety and accountability.[22]
Ultimately, achieving meaningful safety requires a shift from reactive redressal mechanisms to proactive prevention strategies, supported by robust enforcement and institutional responsibility, and inclusive legal protections.
*Authored by Tarunpreet kour, Advocate
**Vishal vyas, Civil judge(Rajasthan Judicial services)
[1] United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights,1948
[2] World Health Organization, Violence Against Women prevalence estimates,2021
[3] The sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, prohibition and Redressal)Act,2013
[4] Ibid, s 2(n)
[5] National Commission for Women Report,2022
[6] Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan AIR SC 3011; Convention on the Elimination of all forms of discrimination against Women (CEDAW), 1979
[7] Canada Labour Code, R.S.C.1985,c.L-2(can.).
[8] Canada Labour Code, Part II, s.122(1), definition of ”harassment and violence.”
[9] Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O.1990,c. H.19,ss. 5(2) &7(2).
[10] Bill C-65, An act to amend the Canada Labour Code (harassment and violence), the Parliamentary employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation act, 2017, No. 1, S.C.2018, c.22.
[11] Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C.1985, c. H-6, s.3(1).
[12] The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace ( Prevention, Protection, Redressal) Act,2013(India).
[13] Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985 < c. L-2; Bill C-65, S.C. 2018, C.22.
[14] Visakha vs State of Rajasthan, (1997)6 SCC 241.
[15] Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., [1898] 1 S.C.R. 1252.
[16] Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C.1985, c. H-6, s.3(1).
[17] The Internal Complaints Committee of Tata Consultancy Services v. Tanuja Priya Bhat, Bombay High Court.
[18] The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace ( Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal ) Act,2013(India).
[19] Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2; Workplace Harassment and violence Prevention Regulations, SOR/2020-130 (Can.).
[20] The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal ) Act, 2013(India).
[21] Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c.L-2.
[22] Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations, SOR/2020-130(Can.).