LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that the statutory definition of a “workplace” under the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, is expansive and covers situations linked to official activity even if the harassment occurs outside office premises.
Justice Raheel Kamran issued the ruling while dismissing a petition filed by a government official seeking to overturn his removal from service for workplace harassment, a penalty imposed by the Punjab Ombudsperson and later upheld after the rejection of his representation by the governor.
The petitioner, Umer Shehzad, a district manager, was accused by his female subordinate, an ad hoc teacher, of persistent harassment.
According to the complaint, Shehzad allegedly used his supervisory position to cast indecent glances, send inappropriate WhatsApp messages and demand an illicit relationship in exchange for professional favours.
According to the complaint, Shehzad forcibly entered her residence, attempted to rape her and fled only after she called the police service Rescue 15.
Judge dismisses petition filed by govt official seeking to set aside his removal from service
Following an inquiry, the Punjab Ombudsperson found Shehzad guilty of “abuse of authority” and harassment under the 2010 Act and imposed the major penalty of removal from service. The decision was later affirmed by the governor.
Before the LHC, the petitioner argued that the incident took place at a private residence and therefore did not fall within the legal definition of a “workplace”.
However, Justice Kamran rejected this narrow interpretation, holding that under Section 2(n) of the Act, a “workplace” includes any situation linked to official work or activity outside the office.
The judge observed that when a supervisor uses the leverage of employment — such as threats to terminate an appointment — to exert pressure on a subordinate, the statutory “nexus” is firmly established regardless of the physical location.
“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,” the judge noted.
Justice Kamran also addressed the petitioner’s objection to the use of unverified WhatsApp messages, noting that the petitioner had indirectly admitted to the communication in his initial defence and failed to challenge their forensics during the inquiry.
Furthermore, the judge clarified that proceedings before the ombudsperson are administrative and disciplinary, not criminal.
The judge noted that the ombudsperson is not bound by the rigid technicalities of the Code of Civil Procedure or the Qanun-i-Shahadat.
The judge also dismissed another argument of the petitioner that a pending criminal case on the same facts barred the ombudsperson’s jurisdiction.
Justice Kamran ruled that the principle of “double jeopardy” does not apply here because criminal trials and disciplinary inquiries engage distinct legal regimes — one for criminal culpability and the other for workplace dignity.
The judge concluded that the guilt of the petitioner reached by the ombudsperson, affirmed by the governor, appears to be not only in consonance with law but also a reasonable and logical inference that could be drawn from the material available on the record.
The judge ruled that the findings recorded by both the forums are neither perverse nor unsupported by the record, nor do they suffer from any jurisdictional defect or legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by the court.
