December 24, 2025
By Rehan Piracha
LAHORE
The Lahore High Court has delivered a significant judgment expanding the interpretation of “workplace” under provincial harassment law, ruling that the statutory definition covers situations linked to official activity even when harassment occurs outside office premises.
Justice Raheel Kamran issued the ruling while dismissing a petition filed by Umer Shehzad, a government official seeking to overturn his removal from service for workplace harassment—a penalty imposed by the Punjab Ombudsperson and subsequently upheld by the Governor of Punjab.
The case involved allegations by Mst. Mehwish Riaz, an ad hoc teacher who served under the petitioner’s supervision at the Government Girls Vocational Institute in Jhang. She alleged persistent inappropriate behavior, including indecent glances, inappropriate messages, and threats to cancel her appointment if she did not comply with his advances. The complaint culminated in allegations of a forced entry into her residence and an attempted assault.
Redefining workplace boundaries
The judgment’s most significant contribution lies in its interpretation of what constitutes a “workplace” under the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010. The court emphasized that the Act’s reach extends far beyond the physical boundaries of an office building.
Justice Kamran clarified: “Section 2(n) defines ‘workplace’ in expansive terms, expressly including ‘any situation that is linked to official work or official activity outside the office.’ This definition must be read purposively and in conjunction with the definition of ‘harassment’ contained in the Schedule to Section 2(c).”
The judgment articulates that “the statutory emphasis, therefore, is not on geography alone, but on the nexus between the conduct complained of and the employment relationship, particularly where supervisory authority is alleged to have been misused.”
Nida Aly, Executive Director of AGHS Legal Aid Cell, praised the ruling’s clarity. “This judgment is significant because it consolidates and clarifies an interpretation of workplace from physical location to power, authority, and employment nexus,” she told Voicepk.
Aly further explained: “By grounding its reasoning in Section 2(n), the Lahore High Court clarifies and correctly interprets that the Act is not territorially confined to office premises. Where a supervisor leverages official authority threats of termination, promises of professional benefit, or abuse of hierarchical power the conduct remains workplace harassment even if it occurs at a private residence or through digital communication.”
The importance of employment nexus
The court carefully delineated the boundaries of its interpretation, making clear that not every interaction between colleagues falls under the Act’s purview. Justice Kamran noted: “The Act, 2010 does not convert every private dispute or personal misconduct between two individuals into workplace harassment merely because they happen to be colleagues.”
The jurisdiction of the Ombudsperson, the court clarified, “is attracted only where the impugned conduct arises out of, is facilitated by, or is inseparably connected with the employment relationship, or where the authority, influence, or power derived from office is used, explicitly or implicitly, to exert pressure, seek compliance, or create a hostile environment.”
Applying these principles to the case at hand, the court found that “the parties did not interact as equals in a private capacity; rather, their relationship was structured by hierarchy and dependence.” The complainant’s allegations that the petitioner “persistently subjected her to unwelcome sexual advances through WhatsApp messages and verbal conduct, coupled with express and implied threats to cancel her appointment in the event of non-compliance” established the requisite workplace nexus.
The judgment emphasized that such allegations “strike at the heart of ‘abuse of authority’ as contemplated in the Schedule to the Act, 2010,” noting that the petitioner exercised influence over matters affecting the complainant’s employment by virtue of his supervisory position.
Criminal proceedings no bar to disciplinary action
One of the petitioner’s key arguments was that the pendency of criminal proceedings arising from the same incident barred the Ombudsperson from exercising jurisdiction. The court decisively rejected this contention, providing crucial clarity on the relationship between criminal and disciplinary proceedings.
Justice Kamran held: “The principle of protection against double punishment or double prosecution (non bis in idem) as embodied in Article 13 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and codified in Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.), is directed against successive criminal trials or punishments based on the same offence.”
The court distinguished disciplinary proceedings, noting that “the complaint before the Ombudsperson under the 2010 Act engages a separate statutory discipline and administrative-disciplinary regime, designed to safeguard workplace dignity, regulate conduct, and impose service-related consequences (minor or major penalty), not criminal punishment.”
Consequently, the court ruled that “the mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically oust or suspend the statutory jurisdiction of the Ombudsperson. Disciplinary or administrative inquiries and criminal prosecutions may lawfully proceed concurrently or independently, provided each relates to distinct legal consequences and remedies.”
Nida Aly highlighted the practical importance of this aspect of the ruling: “The Court’s assertion that proceedings before the ombudsperson are administrative and disciplinary, not criminal, is an important point reinforcing the legislative intent of the Act. It’s detailed judgement which rightly separates and distinguishes criminal liability from disciplinary accountability, which was using the tactic of paralysing workplace proceedings through pending criminal cases.”
“This ensures that women’s right to dignity at work is not subject to delays or uncertainties through legal diversions on flimsy grounds,” she added.
Rejection of procedural and evidentiary objections
The petitioner raised multiple technical objections to the proceedings, all of which the court systematically rejected. These included challenges to the verification of the complaint, reliance on WhatsApp messages without forensic authentication, and alleged violations of formal evidentiary rules.
Addressing the complaint verification issue, the court held that Rule 5 of the 2013 Rules “lays down the contents and ideal form of a complaint but does not prescribe any penal consequence for non-compliance, nor does it declare such omissions to be fatal to the maintainability of the complaint.” The court found that “non-verification or improper verification of plaint/complaint is mere an irregularity which does not entail penal consequences.”
On the evidentiary standard, the court clarified that the Ombudsperson is not bound by the rigid procedural frameworks applicable to civil suits or criminal trials. Justice Kamran explained: “The legislature has intentionally refrained from subjecting the Ombudsperson to the rigid, technical and formalistic procedural framework applicable to civil suits or criminal trials.”
The judgment emphasized that “the Ombudsperson’s forum functions on the civil standard of proof i.e. preponderance of probabilities and not on the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
Regarding the WhatsApp messages, the court found them to carry “intrinsic probative value when considered in their totality and context.” Significantly, the court noted that the petitioner “did not challenge the existence, content, or context of the messages in his written defence or during cross-examination, thereby lending indirect corroboration to the complainant’s account.”
The court also addressed cultural realities affecting harassment reporting: “Within the cultural context of our society, it is a reality that women often refrain from immediately disclosing incidents of harassment, not due to acquiescence, but out of concern for their dignity, family honour, and social stigma. Their initial silence, therefore, cannot be construed as waiver, acquiescence, or estoppel against later seeking redress.”
Judgment aligns with international standards’
Aly emphasized the judgment’s alignment with international standards. “This aligns the Act with international human rights standards on gender-based violence, which recognise coercion, dependency, as the defining elements of workplace harassment.”
“This decision paves the way for substantive equality and gender sensitive interpretation of workplace harassment, ” she concluded.
The judgment reinforces that the court’s role in reviewing Ombudsperson decisions is “supervisory in nature” and that “interference is warranted only where findings are perverse, contrary to law or based on no evidence at all.” Finding no such defects, the court dismissed the petition, affirming both the Ombudsperson’s findings and the Governor’s decision upholding the removal from service.
This ruling provides critical guidance for future harassment cases, clarifying that protection under the law extends wherever employment relationships create power dynamics that can be abused, regardless of physical location. It also ensures that administrative remedies remain accessible without being stalled by parallel criminal proceedings, strengthening workplace protections for women across Pakistan.