LHC Rules Workplace Harassment Law Applies Beyond Office Premises

The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that the definition of a “workplace” under the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, extends beyond physical office premises and includes situations connected to official activity, even if the incident occurs elsewhere.

Justice Raheel Kamran issued the ruling while dismissing a petition filed by a government official, Umer Shehzad, who challenged his removal from service over workplace harassment.

The Punjab Ombudsperson had imposed the penalty after finding him guilty, and the governor later upheld the decision.

Shehzad, a district manager, faced allegations from a female subordinate, an ad hoc teacher, who accused him of misusing his supervisory authority.

According to the complaint, he sent inappropriate WhatsApp messages, made indecent advances, and demanded an illicit relationship in exchange for professional favours. The complainant also alleged that he forcibly entered her residence and attempted to assault her.

Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that the incident occurred at a private residence and therefore fell outside the scope of the law, Justice Kamran held that Section 2(n) of the Act covers any conduct linked to employment or official work.

The judge observed that when a supervisor uses job-related leverage to pressure a subordinate, the legal nexus exists regardless of location.

The court also dismissed objections regarding the admissibility of WhatsApp messages, noting that the petitioner failed to challenge their authenticity during the inquiry.

Justice Kamran clarified that proceedings before the ombudsperson are disciplinary in nature and not bound by strict criminal procedure or evidentiary rules.

The judge further ruled that a pending criminal case does not bar disciplinary proceedings, as criminal liability and workplace accountability operate under separate legal frameworks.

Concluding the judgment, the court found no legal flaw or jurisdictional defect in the findings of the ombudsperson or the governor and refused to interfere.