were not disqualified, the Appellant was forced to cross examine and be cross examined by the accused and there was apparent unresponsiveness on the part of Respondent no. 1 in dealing with the complaint of the Appellant. The no-cause sudden termination of employment of the Appellant also raises concerns regarding there being bias in the proceedings of the ICC. Apart from non-compliance with employers in the composition, and the alleged bias by members of the ICC, that body did not take steps to lend confidence or assurance to the Appellant as she repeatedly raised concerns of not feeling comfortable in the manner in which the proceedings were being conducted and also expressed her discomfort in being around the accused, which was so vital for the fairness in the enquiry, and mandated by Vishaka (supra). This court is of the opinion, that although allegations about the conduct of inquiry are serious and can have the effect of invalidating the process altogether, it would not be appropriate to return them as findings, given that what was addressed during the hearings, were the question of jurisdiction and the validity of appointment of Mr. Dias. 31. This court wishes to emphasize here that the Vishaka Guidelines are to be taken seriously, and not followed in a ritualistic manner. The march of our society to an awareness and sensitivity to the issue of sexual harassment and its baneful effects, flagged in Vishaka (supra), culminated in the path breaking Workplace Harassment Prohibition Act over 17 years later. Even today, the world over is rocked by horrific tales of all forms of sexual harassment of female coworkers at varied workplaces. Decision makers, Parliament, courts and employers are to be ever vigilant in ensuring that effective policies are swiftly and impartially enforced to ensure justice and see that no one is subjected to unwelcome - and unacceptable behavior. Unlike stray cases of individual indiscipline, which are dealt with routinely, upon employers lie the
