Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd.

In 2025, Gayatri Balasamy, a senior software engineer, filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court against ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd., a Chennai-based IT firm. Balasamy alleged that she was constructively dismissed after she raised complaints about systemic gender bias and a hostile work environment. She contended that her employer failed to act on her grievances, subsequently subjected her to retaliatory performance reviews, and forced her resignation. The company denied the allegations, asserting that her exit was voluntary and performance-based. The case examined the interplay between internal complaint mechanisms under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, and the constitutional right to equality. The court’s scrutiny focused on whether the employer’s inaction constituted a violation of fundamental rights, thereby warranting judicial intervention in private employment disputes.

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Gayatri Balasamy, holding that ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. acted arbitrarily and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The court declared the forced resignation null and void, ordered her reinstatement with full back wages, and directed the company to pay substantial compensation for mental agony. It also mandated the company to establish a robust Internal Complaints Committee and conduct regular gender sensitivity training.

Whether the employer’s alleged inaction on gender discrimination complaints and subsequent retaliatory conduct amounted to constructive dismissal, and whether private IT companies are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution for violating fundamental rights in employment.

The ruling set a significant precedent by expanding the scope of writ jurisdiction over private technology employers in matters of gender justice. It strengthened the enforcement of workplace harassment laws in India’s IT sector, emboldening women to report discrimination. The case sparked industry-wide policy revisions and increased oversight of internal complaint mechanisms, highlighting the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional rights within private employment.