Workplace harassment law in Pakistan is no longer a compliance formality , it is a constitutional imperative.
Over the last decade, and particularly in the last few years, Pakistani courts , including the Supreme Court , have fundamentally reshaped how organizations must understand and implement the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 (“the 2010 Act”), its amendments, and the accompanying Rules.
The jurisprudence is now clear:
Harassment law is about dignity, equality, gender justice, and institutional responsibility , not just about sexual misconduct.
This article provides a comprehensive legal roadmap for organizations, HR leaders, compliance officers, and boards , drawing from leading judgments including:
- 2025 PLD 354 (Supreme Court) – Muhammad Din v. Province of Punjab
- 2023 PLD 588 & PLC(CS) 1353 (Supreme Court) – Nadia Naz
- 2024 PLD 795 (Supreme Court) – Raja Tanveer Safdar
- 2022 PLD 783 (Supreme Court) – Uzma Naveed Chaudhary
- 2016 PLD 433 (LHC) – Salim Javed Baig
- 2020 PLD 54 (LHC) – Meera Shafi
- 2025 PLC(CS) 1308 (LHC) – Muhammad Javaid Afzal
- And numerous High Court and Ombudsman decisions shaping procedure, jurisdiction, evidence and governance.
We will also connect this case law to:
- The Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010
- The Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Filing and Disposal of Complaints) Rules, 2013
- The Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Rules, 2010 & 2013
- Relevant provincial amendments
- Internal grievance and conflict-of-interest governance frameworks
And, importantly , we will address where organizations are repeatedly getting it wrong.
1️– Harassment Law Is Constitutional Law
The starting point is constitutional.
Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees dignity. Article 25 ensures equality. Article 34 promotes full participation of women.
In 2024 PLD 795 (SC) – Raja Tanveer Safdar, the Supreme Court held:
Harassment under the 2010 Act goes to the most fundamental right , the right to dignity.
Similarly, in 2025 PLC(CS) 1308 (LHC), the Court emphasized that harassment is not merely a disciplinary issue , it is a constitutional violation of dignity and mental integrity.
Organizations must therefore understand:
- Harassment complaints are not “HR disputes.”
- They are rights-based proceedings grounded in constitutional protection.
Failure to handle them properly can become a constitutional litigation risk.
2️–What Is “Harassment” in 2025? (It’s Broader Than You Think)
The definition under Section 2(h) has evolved significantly through case law.
Traditional Interpretation (Narrow View)
In 2021 PLD 784 (SC) – Nadia Naz, the Court initially emphasized that harassment must be sexual in nature.
Expanded Interpretation (Authoritative View)
However, in 2023 PLD 588 (SC) & PLC(CS) 1353, Justice Ayesha Malik clarified:
Harassment is not limited to physical or sexual advances , it includes gender-based discrimination that creates a hostile work environment.
This interpretation was reinforced in:
- 2022 PLD 783 (SC) – Uzma Naveed Chaudhary
- 2024 PLD 795 (SC)
Harassment now clearly includes:
- Sex-based discrimination
- Sexually demeaning attitudes
- Hostile work environments rooted in gender bias
- Conduct interfering with work performance
- Abusive environments tied to gender
⚠️ But not every rude act qualifies.
In 2013 MLD 198, calling someone “Jahil” or “Badtameez Aurat” was held offensive but not sexual harassment because it did not meet the statutory threshold.
Similarly, in 2024 PLD 6 (Quetta HC), courts warned against misusing harassment law for general workplace disputes without sexual or gender basis.
Lesson for organizations:
Do not over-extend harassment law to general misconduct , but do not under-interpret gender-based hostility either.
Precision matters.
3️– Who Can File a Complaint? (And Who Cannot?)
This has been heavily litigated.
Employees Only? Not Always.
In 2020 PLD 54 (LHC) – Meera Shafi, the Court held that a self-employed independent contractor was not an “employee” under the Act , and therefore could not maintain a complaint under that framework.
Similarly, in 2021 MLD 2003 (Islamabad), mere visitors to an office were not covered.
However, in:
- 2013 MLD 225
- 2019 PCrLJ 806
- 2019 PLD 407
Courts confirmed that students in educational institutions fall within the Act because universities qualify as “organizations.”
Also importantly:
In 2022 PLD 213 (Karachi HC), it was held that a woman may file a complaint even after leaving employment if the harassment occurred during employment.
Organizational risk:
Improper rejection of complaints on technical grounds may lead to judicial reversal.
4️–Federal vs Provincial Jurisdiction: A Minefield
After the 18th Amendment, jurisdiction became complex.
Key rulings:
- 2016 PLD 433 (LHC) , Federal Act transformed into provincial law under Article 270-AA(6).
- 2019 PLD 17 (LHC) , Federal Ombudsman has jurisdiction over trans-provincial organizations.
- 2023 PLC(CS)N 1 , Federal Ombudsperson lacks jurisdiction in provinces where laws have been altered.
- 2025 PLD 293 (Islamabad HC) , Ombudsman cannot transfer complaints without statutory authority.
Organizations operating nationally must carefully assess:
- Whether they fall under federal or provincial ombudsman jurisdiction.
- Whether the complaint arises within a provincial domain.
- Whether their internal policy reflects the correct statutory regime.
Many organizations have lost cases purely on jurisdictional confusion.
5️–Inquiry Committees: Procedure, Evidence & Fairness
The 2010 Act and the Filing and Disposal of Complaints Rules, 2013 give broad procedural flexibility.
In 2019 PCrLJ 806, it was held:
- Inquiry committees are quasi-judicial.
- Strict criminal procedure does not apply.
- However, transparency and impartiality are mandatory.
In 2025 PLC(CS) 358 (Islamabad):
- Minor discrepancies in testimony do not invalidate findings.
- Non-exhaustive listing of incidents in the complaint does not make evidence inadmissible.
- Qanun-e-Shahadat is not strictly applicable , but fair evidentiary principles may be adopted.
In 2025 PLC(CS) 1308 (LHC):
- Failure to specifically deny allegations may amount to admission.
- CCTV and corroborative evidence can decisively establish harassment.
⚠️ Critical point:
If the complaint does not contain allegations that meet Section 2(h), the Ombudsperson must reject it at threshold. (2024 PLC(CS) 1006)
Organizations often:
- Allow committees to investigate beyond pleadings.
- Fail to apply statutory definition at the outset.
- Confuse disciplinary matters with harassment.
That leads to reversals in constitutional jurisdiction.
6️–Double Jeopardy? No.
In 2024 PLD 795 (SC), the Supreme Court decisively rejected the argument that:
- Defamation proceedings,
- Departmental proceedings (PEEDA),
- And harassment proceedings
amount to double jeopardy.
Each operates under separate statutory regimes with separate objectives.
Organizations must therefore understand:
Harassment proceedings do not replace disciplinary law or criminal law , they operate in addition to them (Section 12).
7️– Powers and Limits of the Ombudsperson
Courts have drawn clear boundaries.
The Ombudsperson:
- May impose penalties under Section 4(4).
- May conduct inquiry under Section 8(3).
- May enforce orders (2021 PLD 24).
But:
- Cannot reinstate employees unless authorized (2021 PLD 784).
- Cannot interfere in separate disciplinary regimes (2021 PLD 24).
- Cannot exceed jurisdiction (2016 PLD 433).
- Cannot reduce penalties arbitrarily (2022 MLD 714).
8️–Election of Remedies Doctrine , Limited Application
In 2025 CLC 734 (Karachi HC), the Court held:
In sexual harassment cases, the doctrine of election does not apply rigidly, particularly where departmental remedies are ineffective.
Organizations cannot rely on technical procedural defenses to escape harassment accountability.
9️– Appointment & Removal of Ombudspersons , Governance Lessons
Recent 2025 judgments (PLD 759; PLC(CS) 1354) emphasize:
- Ombudspersons with fixed tenure cannot be arbitrarily removed.
- Election Commission lacks authority to permanently remove them.
- Transparent, merit-based appointment procedures are required.
This has broader governance implications:
If oversight institutions must meet constitutional standards, so must internal committees.
The 2025 Supreme Court Signal: Enforcement Is Non-Negotiable
In 2025 PLD 354 (SC) – Muhammad Din v. Province of Punjab, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with compulsory retirement imposed for harassment.
The Court emphasized:
The framework under the 2010 Act is robust , but its effectiveness depends on strong judicial enforcement.
This is a warning to organizations.
Judicial tolerance for procedural lapses is shrinking.
Where Organizations Keep Failing (Anonymized Patterns)
In large and small organizations recurring failures observed include:
- Improperly constituted inquiry committees
- Conflicts of interest within committees
- Failure to provide opportunity of cross-examination
- Expanding inquiry beyond complaint pleadings
- Misclassifying general misconduct as harassment
- Ignoring retaliation protections under the Code of Conduct
- Jurisdictional errors (Federal vs Provincial)
- Attempting to “discipline quietly” instead of using statutory process
- Failure to incorporate the statutory Code into HR policy
- Using warnings without proper inquiry documentation
These failures are not just HR missteps , they become constitutional litigation risks.
Compliance Checklist for Organizations (2026-Ready)
✔ Update harassment policy in line with:
- 2022 amendments (including transgender protection)
- Expanded definition from 2023 SC jurisprudence
✔ Align internal Code of Conduct with Section 11
✔ Train inquiry committees on:
- Jurisdictional thresholds
- Evidentiary standards
- Limits of authority
✔ Establish conflict-of-interest safeguards
✔ Distinguish:
- Sexual/gender harassment
- General misconduct
- Defamation
- Disciplinary violations
✔ Ensure appellate rights under Section 6 are communicated
✔ Maintain written, reasoned orders
✔ Protect dignity of both complainant and respondent
Final Thought
Harassment law in Pakistan has matured.
It now stands at the intersection of:
- Constitutional dignity,
- Gender justice,
- Workplace governance,
- And institutional accountability.
The message from the Supreme Court is clear:
Safe, inclusive workplaces are not aspirational , they are legally enforceable obligations.
Organizations that treat the 2010 Act as a procedural formality will face reversals, penalties, and reputational damage.
Those who treat it as a constitutional governance framework will build stronger institutions.
If your organization is reviewing its harassment framework, inquiry procedures, appellate protocols, or jurisdictional exposure , Josh and Mak International would be pleased to assist with a comprehensive legal audit or advisory opinion specific to your structure.
Because in 2025 and beyond, compliance is not enough and credibility depends on integrity.