Summary: (a) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 (Amended 2022) ----Ss. 2(e), 2(f), 8 & Preamble---Scope and applicability---Cross-organizational harassment---Whether a complaint is maintainable where the complainant and accused belong to different organizations—Held, affirmative—Following the 2022 amendments, the term *“complainant”* substituted *“employee”* in S.8(1), broadening locus standi to include “any person” aggrieved by harassment, irrespective of employment relationship—Purpose of the Act, as reflected in its Preamble, is of wider import, providing protection against harassment to all persons at any workplace, even if they are not employees of that organization—Reliance placed on *Asif Saleem v. Chairman BOG, University of Lahore* (PLD 2019 Lahore 407). (b) Interpretation of Statute ----Liberal and purposive construction---Where the objective of the legislation is social protection and deterrence of workplace harassment, its provisions must be construed broadly to ensure inclusion of non-employees, visitors, trainees, and other categories otherwise exposed to harassment within the workplace environment. (c) Jurisdiction of Ombudsperson ----Non-employee complainants---Maintainability---Even if a non-employee cannot invoke an organization’s internal Inquiry Committee mechanism, S.8 of the Act permits direct recourse to the Ombudsperson—Complaint filed by doctor employed at PIMS against FIA officials held maintainable before Federal Ombudsperson, notwithstanding absence of common employer. (d) Procedural fairness—Forensic examination of evidence ----Independent examination---Where the complainant alleged sexual blackmail by FIA officials, request for independent forensic examination of her mobile phone, excluding FIA’s involvement, found reasonable and allowed to ensure impartiality. (e) Disposition— Application challenging maintainability of complaint dismissed—Complaint held maintainable under the broadened statutory framework post-2022 amendments—Application for independent forensic examination allowed; both parties directed to nominate independent forensic body other than FIA—Case adjourned for further proceedings.

Summary: (a) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 ----Ss. 4(5) & 6---Jurisdiction---Inquiry Committee report without competent authority’s order---Maintainability of appeal---Where a departmental inquiry committee submitted its report but no final order was passed by the competent authority, the appeal before the Federal Ombudsperson was held premature to that extent—Respondent organization directed to obtain and issue a final order under S.4(5) of the Act to render the matter ripe for appellate adjudication. (b) Termination during pendency of appeal---Effect and validity ----Termination of the Appellant’s services during the pendency of appeal before FOSPAH constituted retaliation contrary to the object and spirit of the Protection Against Harassment Act—Ombudsperson’s interim order dated 30-03-2021 suspending the termination and maintaining *status quo ante* was validly passed—Representation against said order rejected by the Hon’ble President of Pakistan—Repeated failure of Respondents to comply with the suspension order viewed as disregard of lawful directions. (c) Administrative accountability---Compliance with President’s directions ----Where representations under S.8 of the Act were rejected by the President of Pakistan with directions for expeditious disposal, respondent organization was bound to comply—Failure to implement FOSPAH’s order despite presidential affirmation constituted administrative indifference. (d) Employment status pending final decision ----Effect of *status quo ante* order—Suspension of termination restored the Appellant to her pre-termination position with entitlement to back benefits including salary and emoluments until lawful decision by the competent authority—Employer directed to ensure full restoration. (e) Procedural guidance---Future remedy ----Upon issuance of competent authority’s final order on inquiry committee recommendations, the Appellant may avail appellate remedy under S.6 of the Act. (f) Disposition — Appeal disposed of with directions to Pakistan International Airlines to: (1) Implement Ombudsperson’s order dated 30-03-2021 by restoring the Appellant with all back benefits; and (2) Pass a reasoned order on the departmental inquiry report through the competent authority under S.4(5) of the Act—Appellant at liberty to file fresh appeal thereafter.

Summary: (a) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 ----Ss. 4, 6---Termination on allegation of sexual harassment without formal inquiry---Violation of statutory procedure---Scope---Appellant’s employment terminated by the respondent company through letter dated 10-03-2023 on grounds of “misconduct for sexual harassment” without initiating any inquiry under S.4 or the company’s own Anti-Sexual Harassment Policy formulated pursuant to the Act—Held, where an organization adopts a policy incorporating the statutory procedure prescribed by the Act, compliance therewith becomes mandatory—Termination without conducting inquiry, framing charge, or affording opportunity of defence is void *ab initio* and contrary to the law. (b) Contractual employment—“At-will” clause—Master and servant relationship ----Employment letter allowing termination “at any time and for any reason”---Effect---Where dismissal is based on a statutory allegation such as sexual harassment, the employer cannot invoke contractual freedom to bypass the mandatory procedure prescribed by statute—Doctrine reaffirmed that a penalty founded on a statutory ground must follow the statutory process—Reliance placed on *Dr. Qazi Tahir Uddin v. Secretary, Pakistan Medical Commission* (2022 PLC (CS) 805). (c) Administrative law—Estoppel—Change of stance through corrigendum ----Termination on misconduct later modified to “termination simpliciter” by corrigendum issued five months later—Effect—Employer bound by original grounds stated in termination letter—Subsequent alteration of stance amounts to afterthought and mala fide attempt to avoid statutory scrutiny—Reliance placed on *Sajjad Ahmed v. Secretary, Government of Punjab* (2007 CLC 811). (d) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010—Inquiry procedure—Mandatory nature ----Organization’s Harassment Policy expressly adopted under the Act—Omission to convene inquiry committee, communicate allegations, or permit cross-examination rendered the termination void—Provisions of the Act override internal HR discretion. (e) Remedies and directions ----Termination letter dated 10-03-2023 declared void and set aside—Respondent directed to reinstate Appellant to the same post held prior to termination—Claim of back benefits to be agitated before competent forum—Employer at liberty to initiate de novo proceedings strictly in accordance with the Act and internal Harassment Policy—Reliance placed on *Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority v. Itrat Sajjad Khan* (2017 SCMR 2010). (f) Disposition— Appeal allowed—Termination declared unlawful and set aside—Appellant reinstated to service; Respondent permitted to proceed afresh under due process of law.

Summary: (a) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 (as amended by the Act of 2022) ----Ss. 2(h), 4(4)(ii)(a), 4(4)(ii)(c), 6; read with Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013, Ss. 10 & 11; Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Rules, 2013, R.5 Sexual harassment—Definition—“Unwelcome” element—Power imbalance—Standard on appeal—Departmental inquiry—The definition in S.2(h)(i) requires that sexual advances/communication be “unwelcome”; inquiry record disclosed mixed interactions and certain inconsistencies in the complainant’s narration, yet also showed impropriety and sexually inappropriate exchanges—In hierarchical settings, even apparent “consent” may be mediated by power disparity; the senior bears a heightened duty to maintain zero-tolerance norms—On appeal under S.6, the Ombudsperson may re-appraise the material and tailor the penalty to proportionality, keeping in view mitigating and aggravating factors. (b) Departmental inquiry—Due process and procedure ----R.5 of the 2013 Rules; S.4 of the 2010 Act—Allegations of bias, denial of cross-examination, and failure to entertain counter-complaint—Inquiry committee’s process examined—No cogent material proved bias—Counter-complaint was considered in the inquiry findings; however, aspects of procedure (questionnaire method; incomplete exploration of “unwelcome” element) attracted appellate scrutiny but did not vitiate the entire proceedings. (c) Evidence—Circumstantial indicators vs. “unwelcome” requirement ----WhatsApp exchanges, travel conduct, gifts/selfies, and witness accounts—Committee itself recorded contradictions and engagement from both sides; charge of seeking sexual favours by misuse of position was not proved; explicit in-flight conversation and late-night tea incidents lacked independent corroboration—Nevertheless, overall conduct fell short of standards expected from a senior officer vis-à-vis a junior colleague, attracting liability under S.2(h). (d) Service law—Penalty—Proportionality ----S.4(4)(ii)—When record reveals mitigating factors (no prior harassment record; reciprocal communications; cordial conduct contemporaneously; committee’s own exclusions of key charges), the major penalty of “removal from service” [S.4(4)(ii)(c)] is harsh and disproportionate—Appropriate modification is to the major penalty in S.4(4)(ii)(a) (“reduction to a lower post/time-scale or to a lower stage in a time-scale”). (e) Institutional compliance—Zero tolerance framework ----Advisory directions—Department to adopt comprehensive anti-harassment policy; sensitize staff on prevention and complaint mechanisms; issue clear social-media usage rules for official/personal contexts; Head of Bureau to ensure strict compliance with zero-tolerance policy. (f) Appellate powers—Nature and scope ----S.6 of the 2010 Act (as amended); FOIRA, 2013—Ombudsperson may uphold findings of sexual harassment while recalibrating the sanction to meet the justice of the case, without remitting where record is sufficient for final disposition. (g) Disposition— Appeal partly allowed—Findings of sexual harassment under S.2(h) upheld; penalty of removal dated 02-03-2023 modified from S.4(4)(ii)(c) to S.4(4)(ii)(a), i.e., reduction to a lower post/time-scale or to a lower stage in a time-scale; zero-tolerance directions reiterated to the Head of Bureau.

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 — Ss. 4, 5 & 11 — Jurisdiction of FOSPAH — Bar on civil courts and injunctions — Complaint filed by female heirs before Federal Ombudsman (FOSPAH) seeking possession and partition of inherited property — Held, FOSPAH lawfully exercised powers under Ss. 4 & 5 of the 2020 Act to secure women’s property rights; once Section 4 is triggered, Section 11 expressly bars any court or authority from granting injunctions or questioning validity of FOSPAH’s actions — Parallel civil proceedings subsequently instituted by petitioner cannot oust FOSPAH’s jurisdiction — Rais Munir Ahmed v. Women Ombudsperson Punjab (2024 MLD 822) & Fajar Ali v. Mst. Jamila (PLD 1969 Lahore 545) ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan — Art. 199 — Writ against interim and lawful administrative orders — Maintainability — Representation before the President under the Act dismissed as premature since FOSPAH’s order was interim and just; constitutional jurisdiction not attracted absent illegality, mala fides or lack of jurisdiction — No misreading or violation of law found in concurrent findings of FOSPAH and the President — Interference declined. (c) Doctrine of Limine Control — Summary dismissal of unmerited petitions — High Court reaffirmed principle that petitions lacking prima facie grounds may be dismissed at limine to prevent unnecessary process and delay — Reliance placed on Asif Saleem v. Chairman BOG University of Lahore (PLD 2019 Lahore 407) and Muhammad Mustafa v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1992 SC 62). (d) Succession and property transfer — CDA direction — FOSPAH’s direction to Capital Development Authority to transfer suit house among all legal heirs upheld as consistent with mandate of the 2020 Act. Disposition: Petition dismissed in limine; FOSPAH and Presidential orders upheld; no interference warranted.