
In recent times, regulatory action against The Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Nidhi Limited has brought renewed focus on mandatory compliance with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”). The case serves as a clear reminder that POSH compliance is not merely a policy requirement or a formality—it is a statutory obligation, non‑compliance with which can attract financial penalties and regulatory scrutiny.
This development is especially significant for organisations that assume POSH obligations arise only when a complaint is made. The law demands proactive compliance, irrespective of whether any incident of sexual harassment has occurred.

The Registrar of Companies (ROC), Chennai, imposed penalties on The Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Nidhi Limited and its directors for failure to disclose POSH compliance in the Board’s Report, as required under the Companies Act, 2013.
The violation was not based on the existence of a sexual harassment complaint. Instead, it arose from the company’s failure to confirm whether it had constituted an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) as mandated under the POSH Act and whether such compliance was disclosed in its statutory filings.
This action reinforces a critical legal position: absence of complaints does not absolve an organisation from POSH compliance.
POSH Act, 2013
Under the POSH Act, every organisation employing 10 or more employees is required to:
Companies Act, 2013
In addition to the POSH Act, companies are required to disclose POSH compliance in their Board’s Report. This includes confirmation regarding the constitution of the ICC.
Failure to make such disclosures constitutes a violation of corporate governance norms and attracts penalties under the Companies Act.

Many organisations mistakenly believe that POSH obligations arise only when a complaint is received. The Mylapore Hindu Nidhi Fund case clarifies that POSH compliance is preventive in nature. Systems, policies, and committees must exist before any issue arises.
Merely constituting an ICC is not sufficient. Organisations must:
Non‑disclosure itself can lead to penalties, even if the ICC exists in practice.
The penalties in this case were imposed not only on the company but also on its directors. This highlights that POSH compliance is a board‑level responsibility, and lapses can result in personal consequences for those in charge.
Nidhi companies, NBFCs, MSMEs, trusts, societies, and startups are equally bound by POSH laws. There is no sector‑specific exemption.
Apart from legal consequences, failure to comply with POSH laws can result in:
A compliant POSH framework fosters a safe, dignified, and inclusive workplace, which directly impacts productivity and organisational culture.
To ensure compliance and avoid regulatory action, organisations should:
The Mylapore Hindu Nidhi Fund case is a strong reminder that POSH compliance is a legal mandate, not a box‑ticking exercise. Regulators are increasingly scrutinising governance and workplace safety compliance, and ignorance or oversight is no defence.
Organisations that proactively invest in POSH compliance not only safeguard themselves legally but also build safer and more respectful workplaces. The cost of compliance is far lower than the cost of non‑compliance.
This article is intended for general awareness
Mumbai’s workplace culture is unique—fast-paced, cosmopolitan, yet rooted in Indian contexts. Training that acknowledges these nuances is more effective. Local providers understand practical challenges, from conducting sessions that account for Mumbai traffic to being available at your Chembur office or Navi Mumbai facility.
Your Compliance Roadmap
If you haven’t prioritized POSH compliance: