Women in the corporate sector in India continue to face a mix of structural biases and everyday discrimination — from hiring and promotion gaps, to workplace harassment and inadequate facilities. While a few laws exist in India to protect female employees, huge gaps in enforcement and long delays in the legal system blunt their effectiveness. Understanding both the actual problems and the legal framework is essential for employers and women professionals alike.
Working women (Pixabay/Representative)
Biases against women at work are persistent and multifaceted. The need for the present time is not only better labour laws to cover the corporate sector in India but also laws that are gender sensitive. Recently, the Haryana High Court in its judgment also stated that, pregnancy is a fundamental right, yet corporates treat their pregnant employees as a burden. They include conscious and unconscious hiring and promotion biases (the ‘motherhood penalty’), unequal access to high-visibility projects, huge pay gaps, and stereotyping that channels women into less senior or client-facing roles. Even when women reach managerial levels, they often report micro-inequities — being interrupted in meetings, having their ideas credited to others, and being sidelined. These everyday indignities translate into measurable career slow down and earnings loss.
Women also disproportionately experience workplace sexual harassment and safety concerns, which cause attrition, emotional harm, and reputational damage.
India has a statutory framework to address some of these problems:
• Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act, 2013 — The POSH Act mandates that every workplace with 10 or more employees constitute an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to receive and redress complaints of sexual harassment; Section 4 sets out the requirement and composition of the ICC. Employers must follow prescribed inquiry procedures and timelines to ensure complaints are fairly investigated.
• Maternity Benefit Act (as amended 2017) — The Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act increased paid maternity leave entitlements and added obligations such as creche facilities for establishments beyond a threshold of employees. These provisions protect employment during pregnancy and early childcare stages and are a vital workplace right for women. (Refer to the Maternity Benefit Act/Amendment text for specifics on duration and employer duties.)
• Grievance redressal — Beyond POSH, progressive workplaces must set up broader grievance redressal mechanisms (HR grievance cells, employee assistance programmes, and where required, statutory committees) to handle discrimination, harassment and welfare complaints. Such committees not only meet legal compliance but also demonstrate a culture that takes complaints seriously. Multinational companies tend to roll out global policies and frameworks to help address concerns but often do not adhere to them in India as they are aware that the Indian legal system is not something that many employees have the grit to challenge. They must be held accountable to ensuring that they are following the laws of the country they operate in.
Practical steps employers and women should take:-
• Employers: Constitute an ICC/POSH, publish clear grievance procedures, ensure accessible washrooms, creche and breastfeeding-friendly spaces, and create transparent contract terms for maternity and parental benefits.
• Women/employees: Keep records (emails, timestamps, documentation), raise issues early through internal channels, seek ICC help for harassment, and consult labour or legal counsel when rights are denied. Know statutory entitlements such as maternity leave and the right to an ICC complaint process. Identify local litigation lawyers well-versed in labour laws whom they can speak with for legal help.
Some landmark judgments:
Neera Mathur v. Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), Supreme Court of India, 31 October 1991, (1992) 1 SCC 286; AIR 1992 SC 392
Termination during probation, ostensibly as “discharge simpliciter,” was in substance based on alleged non-disclosure of pregnancy; there was no evidence of unsatisfactory work. Such termination was considered arbitrary. LIC’s intrusive questions to female candidates (about menstruation, pregnancies) were embarrassing and derogatory to dignity; the Court advised deletion of such columns from forms.
Lathika Pai v. Microsoft (India) & Ors. (ongoing)
This case has put a spotlight on procedural fairness, adherence of global policies, internal complaints handling, and “constructive dismissal” arguments in white-collar/tech employment disputes. Until a reasoned judgment is delivered, no binding precedent can be stated—only the procedural posture and pleaded issues are available from court orders and reliable reporting. Lathika Pai has challenged the lack of adherence of published global policy by Microsoft to which she was called a “trouble maker who should be thrown out”. She alleges that the resulting intimidation and retaliation by the leaders at Microsoft created a toxic work environment that forced her to resign resulting in constructive dismissal. This case is probably the first of its kind in India in the Corporate sector with a high-profile woman executive taking a giant like Microsoft on.
A few legal protections for women in the corporate world exist but the legal process and time frames for redressal in India need to change to a more timely manner. Indian private sector companies and multinational companies need to be held accountable for violating laws with more judgements in favour of the employees. In western countries like the US and Europe, the reason why employers are careful is that the fines and penalties of flouting Labour Laws are extremely high and the jury awards to the plaintiffs are in the millions of dollars. We need many more women to highlight cases of harassment – sexual, gender bias, intimidation to give other women the strength to take on employers who do not adhere to local laws.
This article is authored by Aishwarya Sandeep, founder, Law School Uncensored.
E-Paper
