Indian Hotels ( IHCL ) has issued a clarification that an external expert committee had undertaken a detailed investigation on this matter and its report has concluded that there was no evidence of any sexual harassment on part of Rakesh Sarna MUMBAI: The handling of a sexual harassment case against Indian Hotels Co. Ltd (IHCL) boss Rakesh Sarna may have been among the factors that led to the shock dismissal of Cyrus Mistry as chairman of Tata Sons on October 24, when Ratan Tata took back the reins at the group’s holding company until a successor is found.While the woman concerned left the Tata group a year ago, Mistry’s office said he had strictly followed protocols and that an inquiry was ongoing. It rebuffed suggestions that there had been a delay in starting an investigation against the former Hyatt executive who’d been handpicked by Mistry to revive IHCL, which runs the Taj group of hotels.The lady executive initially worked with members of Mistry's Group Executive Council (GEC) before Sarna "requested" her to move to Taj.Incidentally, IHCL is one of the companies where Mistry remains chairman. While independent directors have backed Mistry, on Thursday Tata Sons called for a meeting of IHCL shareholders to remove its chairman from the board.Much dirty linen is being aired as both sides have been briefing journalists on and off the record about who did what and when, especially as the next phase of the power struggle is likely to be waged at the companies where Mistry is chairman or director.The woman executive first spoke up about Sarna in early 2015, following which she was moved to another department in the Tata group. Then, just before she resigned in November that year, she recalled the developments that had led her to quit.“Although I thoroughly enjoyed the challenge and responsibility of the Taj role (at IHCL) and had great working relationship with the rest of the company, Mr Sarna's inappropriate behaviour outweighed the positives of the work,” the woman wrote in her letter to Mistry. “During my seven months employment at Taj I was subjected to repeated unwanted sexual advances from Mr Sarna. When I ignored or tried to rebuff them the environment turned hostile.” ET has seen a copy of the November 3, 2015, letter to Mistry.The letter claims that she confided in senior Tata Group officials including former GEC members Madhu Kannan, NS Rajan who was also the chief human resources officer of the conglomerate and Ireena Vittal, independent director of IHC, about the matter. "I came to you in confidence because I felt a large amount of loyalty to the House of Tata," she wrote in her mail to Mistry and went on to say, " I believed I was a valued member of the Tata family and that discretion would help you to find a solution which is best for me, Taj and the Tata Group."She said that the new role was perceived as “a demotion” and that she didn’t see her prospects improving if she stayed at the group, although Mistry had tried to convince her otherwise."I acknowledge you telling me that in six month's time I will be able to put my career back on track, however I do not see the reason why it should be taken off-track considering my high performances in my last roles and my choice of discretion. Also I do not have any tangible proof this will happen, and considering this transition was not done in the best interest of my career, I no longer feel my career is secure in Tata Group," she added.“I must move out of the Tata group and into an organisation which values and respects women's rights,” she wrote. “I hope you are able to use my circumstances as a learning opportunity to make the group a better employer of women.”Sarna directed ET’s queries to the company PR department.“The company has a strict code of conduct under which an independent committee has been set up to inquire into an issue received from an ex-employee,” an IHCL spokesperson told ET. “Given the sensitivity of the matter and the obligations to keep the matter confidential, no further details can be shared.The matter came to Ratan Tata’s attention in June 2016 and he in turn took up the matter with Mistry, said people aware of the matter. The independent probe was initiated only after Tata intervened, they said. For a group that prides in its "leadership with trust" corporate credentials, this was a serious matter. Moreover, the fact that the alleged complainant was shifted out, demoted but the incumbent CEO continued with his job was also unacceptable, added the sources mentioned above. The prolonged investigation was also another point of discontent for the Tata Trust members.Senior Supreme Court lawyer Geeta Luthra, who specialises in sexual harassment suits, pointed out that there are strict rules governing such cases."The girl has to be given a choice. It’s her option to decide if she wants to move out from her current role and not the other way around. Until the probe gets completed – Section 11 of the Sexual Harassment of Women in Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal Act 2013) stipulates enquiry into the complaint has to be completed in 90 days – the accused should not be in a position to influence the inquiry and should be in a different office from the complainant. Ideally if he is the CEO, he should be asked to proceed on leave for a few days pending the enquiry so that the enquiry is impartial and unbiased but at the same time try and ensure he is not victimised. If it is a listed company then under Rule 5 of the Companies (Appointment and Remuneration of Managerial Personnel )Rules, 2014, the number of cases filed, if any, during the Financial Year have to be disclosed under the relevant Sexual Harrassment Act " said Luthra.To be sure, no formal complaint was made in this instance.“Question remains to what extent one can take cognizance of an informal complaint. How do you defend yourself if one doesn’t give specifics but it’s also a reality in India that often women victims do not make a formal complaint for a variety of socio-political reasons. But keeping in mid global best practices HR departments do have a fiduciary responsibilities to initiate some form of probe if someone comes forward with a serious problem,” said another Mumbai based counsel who declined to be identified as he is representing Tata Group in some other matter.Mistry’s office told ET he’d moved swiftly to provide the woman an alternative and equivalent position in the group.But “despite several attempts to retain her, she decided not to accept the position and instead wished to pursue a career outside of Tatas,” Mistry’s office said in its response, adding that “at her request to put the issue behind her, an enquiry was not set up at that point in time.”IHCL’s audit committee led by Keki Dadiseth was tasked with initiating an enquiry into the complaint in July, eight months after the woman’s exit. An independent panel was formed in July 2016 comprising HDFC Standard Life CEO Deepak Satwalekar, Kashmira Mewawala, head of business development at Tata Capital, and Sonal Mattoo, an independent advocate, said a former member of the disbanded Group Executive Council (GEC)—Mistry’s brains trust.Emails and text messages sent to Satwalekar went unanswered.ET spoke to Tata group directors and former GEC members who confirmed the establishment of the independent panel although some were surprised the investigation was taking so long.Besides this, Mistry also called for “a review of the implementation of POSH (Prevention of Sexual Harassment) policy and practices across Tata group companies,” his office said. Representatives from various Tata companies, the Group Ethics Office, Group Legal and Group HR were included in this exerciseMistry’s office added in its letter to ET: “We would request you as a responsible publication to respect the process, as an investigation is currently underway so as to ensure that fair outcomes are achieved for all the people involved.”A Tata Sons spokesperson didn’t respond to ET’s questions.A former GEC member said on condition of anonymity that on November 9th 2015, NS Rajan, the group HR head mailed the executive requesting a meeting with Mukund Rajan, Tata’s Chief Ethics Officer and Bharat Vasani, the Tata Sons general counsel to discuss her situation. Her response on December 2nd suggested she was open to a meeting to help in the creation of a “constructive company policy” on the matter even if she had personally decided to put the issue behind and move on.Her transfer to Tata Sons was a stop gap arrangement, said a former official involved in the matter. Defending the demotion charge, he explained that since different group companies have different grades, she was brought in at senior manager level at Tata Sons. HR managers at Tatas had apparently told the executive that her commensurate level at Tata Sons was that of a senior manager. But the company protected her salary.This could not be independently verified with the executive.Nasdaq listed Igate for example announced that it fired Phaneesh Murthy, President and CEO, in May 2013 as CEO following an investigation into claims that he sexually harassed a female employee. At the time, Igate said the investigation revealed that Murthy had failed to report the relationship which was a violation of IGate's policy and his employment contract. It added that the investigation had not uncovered any violation of its sexual harassment policy.