Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 185(3), read with Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010----Leave to appeal----Concurrent findings of statutory fora and High Court----Scope of interference----Standard in leave jurisdiction----Petitioner, an Assistant Clinical Instructor, challenged concurrent findings of the Federal Ombudsperson, the President of Pakistan (in representation under S.11 of the Act) and the Islamabad High Court, whereby he was found guilty of harassment and dismissed from service with compensation awarded to the complainant----Held, that in leave jurisdiction under Art.185(3), the Supreme Court interferes only where a question of law of public importance arises or where concurrent findings are shown to be the result of misreading, non-reading of evidence or perversity; mere difference of view is insufficient----Record reflected that Ombudsperson conducted a fresh inquiry after finding the original departmental committee improperly constituted; evidence was re-recorded, including reliance on an FIA forensic report of an audio recording; petitioner was afforded notice, disclosure of material, right of cross-examination and a reasoned determination by the Ombudsperson, the President and the High Court----High Court rightly found that successive applications/letters narrating continuing harassment constituted a complaint in substance under S.8 of the Act and justified cognizance----Concurrent findings were reasoned, evidence-based and not shown to be perverse or unsupported by record----No question of law of public importance arose; leave was, therefore, declined and the petition dismissed. (b) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 13(a)----Double jeopardy----Applicability to departmental/disciplinary proceedings----Prior inquiry and fresh statutory process----Effect----Petitioner contended that, since an earlier inquiry committee had not imposed a penalty, a fresh inquiry before the Federal Ombudsperson violated Art.13(a) of the Constitution----Held, that Art.13(a) is attracted to successive criminal prosecutions and punishments for the same offence; departmental or statutory disciplinary processes are remedial and regulatory in nature and do not amount to “criminal prosecution” for the purposes of Art.13(a)----Where a prior inquiry is irregular in constitution or procedure, a de novo process before the competent statutory forum is permissible and does not offend finality principles or the constitutional protection against double jeopardy----In the present case, the Federal Ombudsperson lawfully found the initial inquiry committee improperly constituted and conducted a fresh inquiry herself; this did not constitute double jeopardy nor bar the exercise of statutory jurisdiction. Relied on: Dr. Sohail Hassan Khan v. DG (Research) Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Punjab (2020 SCMR 1708). (c) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 ----Ss. 2(h), 3, 8 & 11----Complaint and cognizance----Form of complaint----Due process requirements----Standard of review----Complaint was made by a BSc Nursing student against her clinical instructor (petitioner) regarding harassment; after an initially defective inquiry, the complainant approached the Federal Ombudsperson who treated her written applications and repeated representations as a complaint under S.8 of the Act----Held, that a complaint under the Act is not confined to a rigid form; repeated written representations narrating continuing harassment may, in substance, satisfy the requirement of a complaint and justify cognizance, provided the respondent is given full opportunity to answer the allegations----Due process in this context demands notice, disclosure of the material to be relied upon, the right to cross-examine and a reasoned determination----Record showed that these requirements stood satisfied; petitioner’s plea that he was condemned unheard was without substance----Orders of the Ombudsperson (imposing major penalty of removal and Rs.500,000/- compensation), the President (dismissing representation) and the High Court (dismissing writ) were concurrent, reasoned and based on evidence, including forensic analysis; no ground for interference in leave jurisdiction was made out. (d) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 ----Ss. 2(h) & 2(b)(f)----Sexual harassment----Nature, forms and standard----Educational/clinical settings----Fiduciary-like duties of instructors----An instructor charged with clinical and academic supervision stands in a position of trust akin to a fiduciary, characterised by asymmetry of power, dependence for professional progression, and vulnerability of students relying on instructors for learning, clinical exposure and references----Such a relationship generates heightened duties: to avoid conflicts between personal gratification and students’ interests; not to exploit authority to solicit or normalize sexualised or gender-demeaning conduct; to maintain a safe learning environment; to respect confidentiality; and to act honestly in institutional processes, including inquiries under the Act----Misconduct in this setting is not a mere breach of discipline but a betrayal of institutional trust that corrodes professional integrity, undermines merit-based progression and deters families from permitting daughters to pursue education and training----Act and its definition of harassment under S.2(h) (including unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, sexually demeaning attitudes, hostile environment and gender-based discrimination) focus judicial attention on impact and environment rather than explicit solicitation alone; harassment that weaponizes power imbalances in any workplace offends dignity at its core----Courts must therefore apply the Act with vigilance in educational and clinical contexts, recognising heightened standards and wider societal stakes. Cited cases: Raja Tanveer Safdar v. Mrs. Tehmina Yasmeen (PLD 2024 SC 795); Muhammad Din v. Province of Punjab (PLD 2025 SC 354). (e) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 9, 14(1), 25(2), 34 & 37(e)----Dignity, equality and protection of women at workplace----International obligations (CEDAW, ILO)----Interpretive approach----Scope and impact----Act is grounded in Arts.14, 25(2), 34 and 37(e) of the Constitution and reflects Pakistan’s international commitments, including CEDAW, ILO Convention No.190 on Violence and Harassment and other instruments affirming the right to just and favourable conditions of work free from violence and harassment for all workers, including informal and domestic workers----Constitutional guarantee of dignity under Art.14 is read in light of classical and contemporary accounts treating dignity as an organising value of the legal order and is supported by Qur’anic injunctions affirming innate honour, common origin and the inviolability of life, property and honour----Operational test derived by the Court is whether the act or rule objectifies or degrades the person, invades bodily or decisional autonomy, erases voice in matters vitally affecting them or denies conditions necessary for meaningful participation in family, community and civic life----Harassment that exploits power imbalances violates this test and offends dignity, equality and social justice obligations under the Constitution----Purposive interpretation, as recognised in Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1988 SC 416) and Darshan Masih (PLD 1990 SC 513), mandates giving full effect to these rights in the context of workplace harassment. (f) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 (as amended in 2022) ----Ss. 2(b)(f) & 2(h), read with definition of “accused”----Informal sector, agricultural labour and domestic work----Inclusive definition of “employee” but restrictive concept of “accused”----Statutory incongruity----Need for legislative reform----Amendments in 2022 broadened S.2(b)(f) so that “employee” now includes regular, contractual, part-time, temporary, freelance, piece-rate, gig workers, students, performers, artists, sportspersons, interns, trainees, domestic workers, home-based workers and apprentices, whether paid or unpaid, voluntary or otherwise----Further amendments in clause (g) extended potential liability to persons procuring services or labour (including freelancers), operators of online/remote businesses and households benefiting from home-based workers----Held, that despite this inclusive definition of “employee”, operative scope of liability remains constrained by the definition of “accused” as “an employee or employer of an organisation”, thereby excluding many agricultural settings, individual farms and households which do not qualify as “organisations”----Women working under landowners, landlords or farmers may thus fall outside the Act’s complaint and redress architecture, notwithstanding their inclusion as “employees”----This statutory misalignment is particularly troubling given rural socio-economic realities, poverty and heightened vulnerability of women and minor girls in field conditions, and warrants urgent legislative attention so that informal and agricultural workers receive effective, enforceable protection in line with international standards and Pakistan’s constitutional obligations. (g) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 9, 14, 25(2), 34 & 37(e), read with Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010----Structural vulnerabilities of women in agrarian and informal sectors----Directions to Federation and Provinces----To render protections under the Act meaningful for all women across Pakistan and to harmonise domestic law with constitutional guarantees and international commitments, Supreme Court recorded grave concern over the limited reach of the Act in agricultural and informal settings and issued detailed directions to the Federation and the Provinces----Held, that failure to effectively extend protection to such workplaces compromises Arts.14(1), 25(2), 34 and 37(e) of the Constitution, given that women constitute a substantial and often under-recognised component of the agricultural and informal labour force----Court directed, inter alia, that: (i) the Federation, through Ministries of Law & Justice and Human Rights and Provincial Law Departments, shall within six months review and, where necessary, propose amendments to expand the definition of “workplace” to all sites of labour, formal or informal, including fields, farms, households and public spaces incidental to work, and further clarify the definition of “employee”; (ii) each Province shall establish District and Tehsil-level Harassment Protection Cells under Provincial Ombudspersons to receive and investigate complaints from rural and informal sectors; (iii) mobile complaint units be deployed in agricultural and peri-urban districts; (iv) Labour and Agriculture Departments devise a monitoring framework for enforcement of the Act across agricultural workplaces; (v) relevant Federal and Provincial departments develop programmes addressing child labour, rural poverty and awareness of workplace rights; and (vi) police receive specialised training on harassment-related offences and ensure safe transportation of minor girls to and from educational and training institutions----These directions are of general application and aim to operationalise the remedial spirit of the Act and the constitutional mandate. (h) Education sector, transport and institutional safeguards ----Safe access and complaint mechanisms for female students----Directions----In furtherance of the Act and constitutional guarantees of dignity and equality, Supreme Court directed that: (i) all drivers/riders providing transport to educational institutions (whether private or contractual) must be registered in governmental data; (ii) law enforcement agencies shall not permit unregistered drivers/riders to pick and drop girls from educational institutions; (iii) a permit system shall be initiated and maintained on a monthly basis, with a bar on persons having criminal records from operating as drivers/riders for such institutions; and (iv) transport authorities shall ensure that no harassment is caused to female students in transportation----Court further directed that all educational institutions where female students are educated shall establish harassment complaint cells and designate faculty members to hear harassment-related matters----These directions seek to reduce vulnerability in transit and to institutionalise accessible complaint mechanisms in educational settings. (i) Administration of justice ----Open justice, privacy and protection of victims of sexual harassment----Anonymisation and reporting restrictions----Balancing Article 14 with transparency----Having regard to Art.14 (dignity) and the principle of open justice, tempered by the need to protect victims of sexual harassment and to encourage reporting, Supreme Court directed that: (i) for all public versions of the judgment and any future reporting or citation, the complainant shall be anonymised as “Ms. K.S.” and all identifying particulars redacted by the Registry; (ii) no person shall publish, broadcast or disseminate any material likely to lead to identification of Ms. K.S. or student witnesses, save as permitted by further order of the Court or the Ombudsperson in enforcement proceedings; and (iii) in any remitted or collateral proceedings, forums concerned shall consider in camera hearings and controlled access to sensitive evidence to preserve privacy and dignity----These observations and directions are of general application and do not disturb the concurrent findings inter partes. (j) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 ----Penalties and remedies----Removal from service and compensation----Scope of interference in leave jurisdiction----Federal Ombudsperson, upon de novo inquiry, imposed major penalty of removal from service and ordered payment of Rs.500,000/- as compensation to the complainant; representation to the President under S.11 of the Act and writ petition before the High Court were dismissed; Supreme Court found that petitioner’s conduct had been adjudicated through lawful procedures based on evidence and cross-examination, that the concurrent findings aligned with the legislative intent to preserve dignity in learning environments and that no violation of due process or miscarriage of justice was evident----Held, that no perversity or misreading of evidence had been demonstrated; no question of law of public importance arose; leave to appeal was declined and the petition dismissed in terms of short order dated 17.10.2025.

Summary: (a) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 ----Ss. 2(h)(ii), 4(2); Protection Against Harassment of Women (Filing & Disposal of Complaints) Rules, 2013, R. 5---Inquiry procedure---Affidavit/complaint as evidence---Cross-examination---Forum’s procedural flexibility---In harassment inquiries there is no rigid format for recording evidence; the Ombudsperson/Inquiry Committee may regulate procedure so long as each side has a fair chance to be heard and to cross-examine (s.4(2))---An affidavit affirming the truth of a detailed complaint filed within R.5 sufficiently incorporates the factual matrix; objection that the affidavit “lacked particulars” is untenable where the complaint and annexures supply them---Held, the complainant’s statement and supporting materials were properly received; accused were afforded full opportunity to cross-examine. (b) Nature of proceedings & standard of proof ----Act, 2010, s.8(1) (by reference); Evidence—quasi-judicial administrative forum---Proceedings are not criminal; the aim is protection from workplace harassment and hostile environment---Complainant need not prove her case beyond reasonable doubt (Imran Amir v. Mst. Ismat Bibi, 2023 CLC 1059 (Islamabad))---Assessment must also account for how an “ordinary, prudent woman” would perceive the conduct (Nadia Naz case)---Held, standard met on the record. (c) Gender-based discrimination & hostile environment (hostility after woman assumes AO role) ----S. 2(h)(ii)---Pattern evidence---After complainant’s promotion to Administrative Officer (previously held by a male), incidents with watchmen, misuse of office staff/vehicles, and non-action by superiors created a hostile environment; administrative powers were withdrawn without lawful basis; recruitment process irregularities (multiple unwarranted retests for an applicant who repeatedly failed) and rumor-mongering undermined her authority---Held, cumulative conduct amounts to gender-based harassment interfering with work performance and creating an intimidating/hostile workplace. (d) Duty to constitute/activate harassment mechanism; managerial accountability ----S. 2(h)(ii) read with Act’s scheme---DG (Accused No.1) failed to act on complaints, permitted misuse of staff for personal work, and did not reconstitute the Inquiry Committee despite retirements and a pending harassment complaint, thereby enabling a hostile environment---Held, harassment made out against Accused No.1. (e) Individual liability—Accused No.2 ----Single episode of shouting/throwing files—no repetition or pattern shown---On totality, gender-based harassment not established---Accused No.2 acquitted. (f) Individual liability—Accused No.3 ----Bullying, threats, misuse of state resources, rumor-mongering when complainant refused undue concessions—admission that DG allowed watchman’s deployment for personal use---Held, harassment under s.2(h)(ii) proved. (g) Individual liability—Accused No.4 ----Stalking/peering at office, instigating subordinates, frivolous complaints impugning competence, insinuations about taking instructions from spouse; no proof for allegations raised---Conduct created hostile work environment---Held, harassment proved. Cited Cases: • *Imran Amir & others v. Mst. Ismat Bibi & others*, 2023 CLC 1059 (Islamabad). • *Raja Tanveer Safdar v. Ms. Tehmeena Yasmin*, PLD 2024 SC 795. • *Uzma Naveed Ch. v. Federation of Pakistan*, PLD 2022 SC 783. • *Nadia Naz case* (applied for the “ordinary prudent woman” lens). (g) Disposition — Complaint allowed in the terms set out: • Accused No.1 (DG): Harassment under s.2(h)(ii) established; in view of departure from ministry, minor penalty of compensation imposed under s.4(4)(1)(d): Rs. 200,000/- payable to complainant. • Accused No.2: Acquitted of gender-based harassment. • Accused No.3: Harassment under s.2(h)(ii) established; minor penalty of compensation under s.4(4)(i)(e): Rs. 200,000/-. • Accused No.4: Harassment under s.2(h)(ii) established; major penalty under s.4(4)(ii)(a): reduction to a lower scale. • Department directed to refer complainant’s applications against the two watchmen to the Harassment Committee under the Act, and to ensure the committee remains functional at all times. File consigned.

Summary: (a) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 (as amended in 2022): ----Ss. 2(h), 4(4)(ii), 18—Sexual harassment—Compulsory retirement—Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction—Expanded scope of ‘harassment’ and ‘workplace’—Protection of dignity and gender equality— Driver (petitioner) was found guilty of workplace harassment against a lady doctor (respondent No. 5), including verbal abuse, defamation, unlawful video recording, and misconduct in a professional setting—Ombudsperson, after thorough inquiry, imposed penalty of compulsory retirement under S. 4(4)(ii)—Held, such conduct clearly fell within the expanded definition of "harassment" under the 2010 Act as amended by the 2022 Amendment Act—Amended Act broadened protections to cover gender-based discrimination and informal power dynamics irrespective of formal hierarchy—Court observed that harassment stems from abuse of power, not necessarily formal authority—No jurisdictional or procedural error found in Ombudsperson's or High Court’s decisions—Petition dismissed. (b) Constitution of Pakistan— ----Arts. 14, 18, 25 & 34—Gender equality—Right to dignity—Safe workplace—Constitutional and international obligations— Right to a safe and harassment-free workplace is constitutionally guaranteed under Arts. 14 (dignity), 18 (right to profession), 25 (equality before law), and 34 (full participation of women in national life)—Court emphasized that harassment undermines liberty, equality, and human dignity—Legislative and judicial efforts to eliminate workplace harassment align with Pakistan’s international commitments including CEDAW, UDHR, ICCPR, and ILO Convention No. 190—Pakistan’s failure to ratify ILO Convention was noted as a legislative gap requiring urgent attention to strengthen safeguards for all genders including women and transgender persons—Recommendation made to Attorney General to pursue ratification. (c) Employment law— ----Power dynamics—Informal authority—Hostile work environment—Quid pro quo vs. systemic discrimination— Court applied feminist jurisprudence, notably MacKinnon’s theory, recognizing harassment as rooted in gendered power structures and social reinforcements—Even junior employees, through societal privilege or cultural norms, may create hostile environments for seniors—Sexual harassment is a form of systemic discrimination that reinforces gender hierarchies—Distinction drawn between quid pro quo and hostile work environment harassment, both of which violate right to equality—Workplace harassment jurisprudence must be interpreted in light of constitutional norms and evolving gender justice frameworks. ----Disposition: Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. Recommendation made to pursue ratification of ILO Convention No. 190.

Summary: (a) Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 (2010 Act) & Constitution of Pakistan ----Secs. 2(h), 4(4)(ii), 7, 8; Arts. 14, 18, 25, 34, & 184(3) Sexual harassment—Scope and legal framework—Petitioner, a driver, was accused of workplace harassment by respondent No.5, a lady doctor—Allegations included verbal abuse, character assassination, unethical conduct with female patients, and unauthorized video recording of respondent No.5 during an ultrasound procedure—Ombudsperson, Punjab, found the allegations established under Sec. 2(h) of the 2010 Act and imposed the major penalty of compulsory retirement under Sec. 4(4)(ii)—Governor of Punjab dismissed petitioner’s representation, and Lahore High Court upheld the decision—Petitioner’s constitutional petition was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. Held, sexual harassment in workplaces is not an individual grievance but a systemic issue perpetuating gender inequality—It restricts women’s economic participation and violates fundamental rights under Arts. 14 (dignity), 18 (right to a safe working environment), and 25 (equality) of the Constitution—Laws against workplace harassment, including the 2010 Act and its Amendment Act, 2022, align with constitutional protections and international obligations—No jurisdictional error or illegality was found in the impugned judgment—Petition dismissed. Cited Cases: • Uzma Naveed Chaudhry v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2022 SC 783 • Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson 477 U.S. 57 (1986) • Harris v. Forklift System 510 U.S. 17 (1993) • Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC 3011 • Janzen v. Platy Enterprises [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252 • Carmichele v. Minister of Safety and Security 2001 (4) SA 938 (CC) (b) Workplace Harassment—Gendered Power Dynamics ----Power imbalance—Hostile work environment—Intersectionality Petitioner, despite holding a subordinate position as a driver, exerted informal power through social reinforcement and gender privilege, creating a hostile work environment for a senior female doctor—Harassment in workplaces stems from entrenched societal norms and gender hierarchies rather than formal authority—Power imbalances allow subordinates to undermine women in leadership roles—Workplace harassment laws must be interpreted in light of systemic discrimination and gendered power structures. Cited Literature: • Catherine A. MacKinnon, Sexual Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Sex Discrimination (1979) • Paula Nicolson, Gender, Power and Organization: A Psychological Perspective on Life at Work (1996) • Deborah Rhode, Speaking of Sex: The Denial of Gender Equality (1999) (c) International Human Rights Standards & Legal Obligations ----ILO Violence and Harassment Convention No. 190—CEDAW—UN Sustainable Development Goals Pakistan’s workplace harassment laws align with international legal instruments, including: • ILO Violence and Harassment Convention No. 190—First binding treaty against workplace harassment, not yet ratified by Pakistan. • CEDAW (1979)—Protects women’s right to a safe working environment free from discrimination. • UN Sustainable Development Goals (Goals 5 & 8)—Mandate elimination of workplace violence and ensuring decent work conditions. Held, ratifying the ILO Violence and Harassment Convention would strengthen Pakistan’s legal protections against harassment, promote human dignity, and reinforce gender equality commitments under international law—Copy of the judgment directed to the Attorney-General of Pakistan for consideration of ratification. Disposition: Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Summary: Against impugned order dated 12.9.19 passed by the office of Ombudsman Islamabad whereby application for transfer of complaint to the provincial ombudsman KPK has been accepted. (a) Constitution of Pakistan –– ---- Art. 199 – Writ jurisdiction – Federal Ombudsman’s lack of authority to transfer complaints – Petitioner challenged the transfer of a harassment complaint by the Federal Ombudsman to the Provincial Ombudsman – Held, the Federal Ombudsman lacked statutory power under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 ("2010 Act") or the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Amendment) Act, 2018 ("2018 Act") to transfer complaints – Transfer of complaint declared without jurisdiction – Federal Ombudsman directed to return the complaint to the complainant for filing before the competent forum. (b) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 –– ---- Federal vs. Provincial jurisdiction after the 18th Constitutional Amendment – Following the 18th Amendment, the subject of social welfare, including workplace harassment laws, was devolved to the Provinces – Held, after the enactment of the 2018 Act by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly, jurisdiction over harassment complaints in KPK vested in the Provincial Ombudsman – Federal Ombudsman lost jurisdiction over such matters but lacked express statutory power to transfer pending complaints. (c) Administrative Law –– ---- Statutory interpretation – Lack of transfer provisions in law – No provision in either the 2010 Act or the 2018 Act authorized the Federal Ombudsman to transfer complaints to the Provincial Ombudsman – Held, legislative intent must be expressed in statutory language; courts cannot infer a transfer power absent clear legislative mandate – Transfer of complaint set aside. (d) Ombudsman Jurisdiction –– ---- Federal Ombudsman’s authority post-2018 Act – Federal Ombudsman continued to exercise jurisdiction under Section 96(6) of the 18th Amendment until the 2018 Act came into force – However, once the Provincial Ombudsman was established, Federal Ombudsman could no longer entertain complaints related to organizations operating within KPK – Held, complainant should have filed a fresh complaint with the Provincial Ombudsman instead of seeking a transfer. (e) Judicial Review –– ---- Article 199 – Courts’ power to review actions of the Ombudsman – Respondent argued that under Section 18 of the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013, courts lacked jurisdiction to review the Ombudsman’s orders – Held, a statutory ouster clause cannot override constitutional judicial review under Article 199 – If an Ombudsman’s order is without jurisdiction, courts have the power to declare it null and void. (f) Legislative Recommendation –– ---- Need for statutory amendments – The absence of a transfer mechanism created jurisdictional ambiguity – Court recommended legislative amendments to the 2010 Act to enable Federal Ombudsman to transfer complaints properly to Provincial Ombudsmen while preserving prior proceedings. Disposition: ---- Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 12.09.2019 set aside – Federal Ombudsman directed to return the complaint to the complainant for filing before the Provincial Ombudsman – Court recommended legislative amendments to resolve transfer-related jurisdictional conflicts.

Summary: (a) Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 ----Ss. 2(h)(ii), 4(4)(ii)(e) & 4(8) Gender-based discrimination and workplace harassment—Blatant violations by senior management at a microfinance bank—Final Order by Federal Ombudsperson. The complaint was filed under Section 8(1) of the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, by the Group Head Business at Khushhali Microfinance Bank against senior executives and the Board of Directors. The Complainant alleged gender-based discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, including denial of severance benefits, forced resignation, and inaccurate financial settlements. Evidence presented established that male employees in comparable roles received favorable treatment and benefits, whereas the Complainant was unjustly denied such entitlements. The Bank also failed to follow mandatory procedures under the Act, such as constituting an Inquiry Committee. The Federal Ombudsperson held the Accused guilty of gender-based discrimination, imposing fines under Section 4(4)(ii)(e) and directing payment of Rs.5,000,000/- as compensation under Section 4(8). (b) Workplace Policies—Non-compliance—Failure to constitute Inquiry Committee—Mandatory training sessions ordered. The Bank’s failure to establish an Inquiry Committee as mandated under Section 3(2) of the Act and its lack of adherence to its own gender policy highlighted systemic flaws. Directions were issued to the Bank’s senior management to comply with the Act by setting up a standing Inquiry Committee, displaying relevant information at conspicuous places, and conducting regular training sessions on harassment policies to educate employees about workplace conduct. (c) Retaliation—Institution of civil suits—Tactics to intimidate and deter harassment complaints. Evidence demonstrated retaliatory actions by the Accused, including the institution of a civil suit to recover loan amounts after the Complainant filed her harassment complaint. Such actions were deemed an attempt to intimidate the Complainant and obstruct her pursuit of justice under the Act. Cited Cases: Nadia Naz v. President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan(PLD 2023 SC 588) Imran Maqbool v. Federation of Pakistan** (PLD 2019 Lahore 17)

Summary: (a) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 ----Ss. 2(h)(i), 4(4)(ii)(d) & (e)---Sexual harassment---Definition and elements---Unwelcome sexual advances, physical contact, and sexually charged messages constitute workplace harassment under s. 2(h)(i)---Accused’s repeated touching, sexual comments, late-night calls, and messages such as “practical khidmat ki apni importance hai” coupled with the complainant’s persistent resistance proved an unconsented pattern of sexual behavior---The complainant’s contemporaneous protests (“Stop touching me here and there... You apologized last year...”) and the accused’s subsequent written apology amounted to clear acknowledgment of guilt. (b) Admission and evidentiary value of apology ----Apology as admission---Where accused tenders apology for his actions, it constitutes acknowledgment of misconduct---Applied: *Zaheer Ahmad v. Federal Ombudsman Secretariat for Protection against Harassment at Workplace*, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 839 (para 7)---Held, accused’s multiple written apologies (“I am apologizing last time… I admit my sins… you may award any punishment”) constitute confession and conclusive proof of harassment. (c) Cross-examination and procedural fairness ----S. 4(2)---Right to defend---Accused repeatedly avoided cross-examination despite multiple opportunities; his right was closed after deliberate non-compliance---Representation against the closure order was dismissed by the President of Pakistan---Held, no violation of natural justice; accused had fair opportunity but chose not to exercise it. (d) Maintainability---Jurisdiction of FOSPAH after failed institutional inquiry ----S. 6 & 8---Complaint before FOSPAH maintainable when departmental committee fails to complete inquiry or is not trusted by the complainant---Accused’s objection to jurisdiction already decided on 26.10.2023 and unchallenged, thus attaining finality---Participation in proceedings estops accused from raising maintainability at final stage. (e) Burden of proof and credibility of evidence ----Quasi-judicial proceedings---Standard of proof is preponderance of probability---Complainant’s affidavit, corroborated by her daughter’s statement, detailed contemporaneous messages, and absence of rebuttal evidence by the accused, conclusively established harassment---Accused’s defence of “consensual relationship” unsupported by record; no counter-messages, disciplinary inquiry, or independent witness produced---Held, defence rejected. (f) Workplace integrity and abuse of authority ----Abuse of official position---Accused, being Head of Department, used his position to coerce the complainant, cause mental trauma, and threaten her professional security---Such conduct violated the complainant’s dignity and sanctity of workplace guaranteed under the Act. Cited Case: • *Zaheer Ahmad v. Federal Ombudsman Secretariat for Protection against Harassment at Workplace*, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 839 (para 7). (g) Disposition — Complaint allowed. Accused found guilty of sexual harassment. Major penalty of dismissal from service imposed under s. 4(4)(ii)(d), along with fine of Rs. 1,000,000/- under s. 4(4)(ii)(e); Rs. 800,000/- to be paid to complainant as compensation and Rs. 200,000/- to be deposited in state treasury. Competent Authority at FUUAST directed to implement penalties and submit compliance report to FOSPAH by 05.12.2024.

Summary: (a) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 ----Ss. 6, 2(h)(i), 4(1)(a)-(c) & 4(2)---Appeal---Definition and ingredients of “harassment”---Inquiry Committee’s procedural discretion---Service of complaint vs. charge-sheet---Right to cross-examination---Maintainability and scope---Harassment includes any unwelcome sexual advance, request for sexual favors or sexually demeaning conduct creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment (s.2(h)(i))---Under s.4(1)(a)-(c) read with s.4(2), the Inquiry Committee may regulate its procedure; what is essential is communication of charges, opportunity to submit a written defence, and a fair chance to meet the case---Service of a charge-sheet setting out the imputation satisfies the requirement; supply of the original complaint is not indispensable where no prejudice is shown---Right of cross-examination is recognized (s.4(1)(c)), but principles of natural justice are flexible and context-sensitive; where fair opportunity existed, a grievance of rigid, formal cross-examination does not vitiate proceedings. Reliance placed on *High Flying Solar Development Pakistan Ltd. v. NEPRA* (2016 CLC 1805), para 16. (b) Evidence and corroboration (CCTV / contemporaneous narration) ----S. 2(h)(i)---Standard of proof in administrative harassment inquiries---CCTV footage, admissions, and prompt disclosure---The complainant’s account that the accused emerged from the attached washroom, blocked her path, re-entered after looking around, used obscene language, made sexual propositions, and attempted physical contact, stood corroborated by CCTV timing (entry/exit ~3:57 p.m.) and by the accused’s own admission of presence and door-opening at that time---Her immediate narration to co-workers (JNSO and Stenotypist) was recorded, lending contemporaneity and credibility---Held, the evidentiary mosaic met the requisite standard for workplace harassment inquiries. (c) Workplace nexus and positional power ----S. 2(h)(i)---Posting/supervisory status not determinative---Harassment “at the workplace” is established where the misconduct occurs within the complainant’s work premises; it is immaterial that the accused was posted elsewhere or lacked a direct supervisory role---Relative seniority and associated social/administrative power are relevant contextual factors in assessing workplace vulnerability and hostile environment. (d) Prior record and pattern of conduct ----Administrative law---Penalty calibration---Service record indicating repeated explanations, warnings, and prior complaints of misbehavior (including towards female visitors) may be considered as aggravating factors in assessing character and future workplace risk; not every entry was harassment-specific, yet the cumulative pattern informed sanction. (e) Withdrawal/forgiveness affidavits in harassment matters ----Effect---Duress and societal/economic pressure---A complainant’s post-inquiry affidavit “forgiving” the accused does not ipso facto extinguish proceedings---Where circumstances reflect potential coercion or economic vulnerability, the competent authority must scrutinize voluntariness before acting on such withdrawal---Held, acceptance of withdrawal in the present case was improper; merit-based findings could not be displaced by a compromised affidavit. (f) Natural justice—cross-examination and fairness in specialized inquiries ----S. 4(1)(c) & 4(2)---Audi alteram partem---Flexibility---On the record, both parties were afforded a face-to-face opportunity to put questions; accused expressed satisfaction contemporaneously; proceedings curtailed due to accused’s unethical conduct---No contemporaneous objection of denial of cross-examination was shown---Held, elementary and essential fairness was ensured; rigid trial-type cross-examination is not a mandatory precondition in every administrative inquiry. Applied: *High Flying Solar Development Pakistan Ltd. v. NEPRA* (2016 CLC 1805), para 16. Distinguished: Appellant’s reliance on FOH LHR Appeal No. FOHLHR/00000006/2022 (*Muhammad Afzal v. Bank of Punjab*) being context-specific and not controlling. (g) Disposition — Appeal dismissed. Findings of harassment sustained. Minor penalty (withholding of increment for three years) set aside; original major penalty recommended by the Inquiry Committee restored: “Reduction to a lower post or time-scale, or to a lower stage in a time scale.” Cited Cases: • *High Flying Solar Development Pakistan Ltd. v. NEPRA*, 2016 CLC 1805 (para 16) — applied on flexibility of natural justice. • *Muhammad Afzal v. Bank of Punjab etc.*, FOHLHR/00000006/2022 — cited by appellant; not followed on facts.

Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged the order dated 18.07.2022, issued by the Federal Ombudsman for Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace, Islamabad. The respondent had filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging misogynistic behavior based on incidents occurring on 01.01.2021 and 04.01.2021 at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS). The LUMS HR Grievance Committee and the LUMS Sexual Harassment Committee both dismissed the complaints, concluding no evidence of misogynistic behavior or sexual harassment. Despite these findings, the respondent filed a new complaint with the Federal Ombudsman under the Federal Act, which led to the contested order. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Federal Ombudsman has jurisdiction over a complaint involving an organization (LUMS) localized within a provincial boundary (Punjab). 2- Whether the Federal Ombudsman can assume jurisdiction over incidents of sexist harassment that occurred before the 2022 amendment to the Federal Act. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Jurisdiction of Federal Ombudsman: The court examined whether LUMS, established under a federal charter, falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Ombudsman. The court emphasized that the Federal Government had no direct financial and administrative control over LUMS, and the President of Pakistan is only its ceremonial head. The court referred to Section 2(l) of the Punjab Act, which includes federal institutions operating within the province under its jurisdiction. LUMS, being localized in Lahore, Punjab, falls under the definition of an "organization" under the Punjab Act. ---Application of Federal Act vs. Punjab Act: The court cited previous cases, including Salim Javed Baig vs. Federal Ombudsman and others, which held that the jurisdiction for harassment complaints within provincial boundaries lies with the Provincial Ombudsperson. The court clarified that unless an organization transcends provincial boundaries, jurisdiction remains with the Provincial Ombudsperson. As LUMS operates exclusively within Punjab, the Federal Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction. ---Impact of the 2022 Amendment: The court noted that the incidents in question occurred before the 2022 amendment to the Federal Act, which expanded the definition of harassment to include sexist remarks. Therefore, the Federal Ombudsman cannot assume jurisdiction based on this amendment for incidents that occurred prior to its enactment. The court concluded that the complaint filed by the respondent was not maintainable before the Federal Ombudsman and set aside the impugned order dated 18.07.2022. The complaint was deemed returned to the respondent, who may file it before the Provincial Ombudsperson if so advised. The court refrained from commenting on the merits of the case to avoid prejudicing either party before the competent forum. ----Citations/Precedents: Nadia Naz v. The President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others, PLD 2021 SC 784 Salim Javed Baig and others v. Federal Ombudsman and others, PLD 2016 Lahore 433 SZABIST (Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology) through Authorized Representative vs Federal Ombudsman/Ombudsperson through Registrar and 3 others, PLD 2018 Sindh 581 Jubilee Life Insurance Company Limited vs. The Federal Government through Secretary Law, etc., 2021 PLC(CS)1563 Imran Maqbool, President, MCB Bank Limited vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law, Justice and Human Rights Division, Islamabad etc., PLD 2019 Lahore 17 Messrs Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others, 2018 SCMR 802 ----Quote: The petitioner and respondent No.2 ("the respondent") were employed by Lahore University of Management Sciences ("LUMS"). The respondent alleged that on 01.01.2021 and 04.01.2021, the petitioner's behavior was misogynistic. The matter came before the LUMS's Sexual Harassment Committee and was decided in favour of the petitioner against which further remedy was not availed by the respondent and after lapse of almost one year jurisdiction of the Federal Ombudsman (respondent No.1) under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 ("Federal Act") was invoked by filing a complaint and objection was raised by the petitioner that the Federal Ombudsman has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate, which objection was dismissed by the Federal Ombudsman through impugned order on the ground that LUMS was a Federally Chartered University with President of Pakistan as its Head, therefore, Federal Ombudsman is empowered to adjudicate the matter. Held: The fact that an institution was established by the Federal Government and/or has a federal character is not the litmus test to draw the conclusion that only Federal Act is applicable in cases of harassment of women at workplace. Unless an organization transcends the provincial boundaries, jurisdiction of the Provincial Ombudsperson for protection of women against harassment at workplace is not ousted and no incident to trigger the assumption of jurisdiction by Federal Ombudsman takes place. The charter of LUMS clearly indicates its operations has been localized within the Province of Punjab (at Lahore), therefore, for the purpose of determining as to which of the two Ombudsmen (Federal or Provincial) in relation to protection of the Women from harassment at workplace has the jurisdiction in respect of harassment caused by or to the employee of an organization, the charter alone could not be made basis of such determination, more particularly, if the place of business, operations and activities of the organization were ?localized' in a particular province and/or city.

Summary: (a) Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 (PAHAW Act) ––Section 2(h)(ii), Section 4(i)(c), Section 4(i)(d)— Gender-Based Harassment—Complaint of harassment filed by the Complainant, Assistant Registrar at Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE), alleging gender discrimination, repeated transfers, denial of promotions, and hostile work environment—Harassment under Section 2(h)(ii) includes discrimination based on gender, resulting in prejudicial behavior against the complainant—Evidence indicated repeated transfers, deferment of promotions without justification, and withdrawal of responsibilities shortly after assignment, demonstrating a discriminatory pattern of behavior by PIDE management—Complaint found to fall under the ambit of harassment as defined by law. (b) Service Matters and Forum Jurisdiction ––Federal Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction clarified— Forum held that while service matters generally fall outside its jurisdiction, aspects related to gender discrimination at the workplace are within its purview—Claim that promotion was deferred due to ongoing litigation before the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) found baseless as no restraining order or policy letter was produced by the accused. (c) Harassment and Workplace Conduct ––Patterns of transfers, denial of promotions, and frequent withdrawal of responsibilities were identified as systemic harassment— Accused persons, including the Vice Chancellor, Registrar, and In-Charge HR, found guilty of fostering a hostile work environment—Defense arguments regarding health conditions of the complainant and procedural matters rejected as irrelevant to the core issue of harassment. (d) Compensation and Penalties ––Section 4(i)(c) and Section 4(i)(d) of PAHAW Act invoked— Penalty of stoppage at the efficiency bar for three years imposed on each accused person—Compensation of PKR 200,000 awarded to the complainant, recoverable from each accused, for the financial and emotional harm caused by delayed promotion and systemic harassment—Directive issued to PIDE for creating a respectful and inclusive workplace, with a compliance report required within 15 days. Cited Cases: • Campbell Scientific Africa (Pty) Ltd v. Simmers and Others ([2015] ZALCCT 62) • PLD 2021 SC 784 • PLD 2023 SC 588