Sometimes harassment does not begin with a touch. It begins with words, rumours, humiliation, character assassination, and the slow destruction of a woman’s dignity at work. Harassment at workplace in Pakistan is not only a personal problem; it is a legal, social, constitutional, and human dignity issue. In this important Supreme Court judgment, a lady doctor complained against her driver for abusive conduct, indecent language, malicious rumours, and secretly recording a medical procedure without consent. The Supreme Court used this case to explain a powerful truth: sexual harassment is not about sex; it is about power.
| Court Judgment Summary | |||
| Citation | 2025PLD354 | Harassment at Workplace in Pakistan | |
| Court / Forum | Supreme Court of Pakistan | ||
| Hon’ble Judges | Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi | ||
| Petitioner | Respondent | ||
| Muhammad Din | Province of Punjab and others | ||
| Judgment Author | Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah | ||
| Final Decision | Leave to appeal refused; petition dismissed | ||
Table of Contents
Why This Supreme Court Judgment Matters
Every workplace should be a place of dignity, not fear. When a woman goes to work, she should not have to fight rumours, insults, abusive remarks, character attacks, or intimidation before doing her job.
This judgment matters because the Supreme Court treated harassment at workplace in Pakistan as a serious systemic issue. The Court did not reduce the matter to one employee’s complaint. It explained that workplace harassment affects dignity, equality, livelihood, and women’s participation in professional life.
The Court also made a very important point: harassment is not always committed by a senior officer. Even a junior employee can harass a senior woman if he uses social power, gender prejudice, and workplace culture to undermine her authority.
Background of the Case
The case started when Dr. Sidra Zafar, a lady doctor, filed a complaint on 30 December 2019 before the Ombudsperson, Punjab under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010.
Her complaint was against Muhammad Din, who was her driver. She alleged that he abused her, verbally attacked her, used indecent language, behaved unethically with female patients, and spread malicious rumours about her alleged affairs with male colleagues.
The complaint also stated that these remarks were made in front of other staff members. This was not just rude behaviour. According to the complaint, it was character assassination intended to damage her reputation, dignity, and professional standing.
This case therefore became an important example of harassment at workplace in Pakistan, especially where dignity and reputation are attacked through words, rumours, and workplace misconduct.
The Serious Incident Inside the Ultrasound Room
The most serious allegation was about an incident dated 26 October 2019. According to the judgment, the petitioner unlawfully entered the ultrasound room while Dr. Sidra Zafar was performing an ultrasound on a patient.
He allegedly recorded the procedure without consent. Later, he disseminated the video and made false and defamatory allegations against her. The allegations suggested improper relations with men and were aimed at tarnishing her professional honour.
This fact is important because harassment is not always limited to direct physical conduct. It can also include invasion of privacy, recording without consent, spreading rumours, and creating a hostile environment.
For ordinary citizens, this judgment explains that harassment at workplace in Pakistan may include conduct that damages dignity, reputation, safety, and ability to work.
What Happened Before the Ombudsperson?
The Ombudsperson, Punjab issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner denied the allegations.
After examining the evidence, the Ombudsperson found that the allegations stood proved. The Ombudsperson held that the petitioner’s conduct amounted to harassment under Section 2(h) of the 2010 Act.
As punishment, the Ombudsperson imposed the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service under Section 4(4)(ii) of the Act through order dated 18 March 2020.
The petitioner then filed a representation before the Governor of Punjab. That representation was dismissed on 6 August 2020. After that, he filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed on 30 March 2023. Finally, he approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Petitioner’s Lawyer
The petitioner was represented by Rashad ul Musawar, Advocate Supreme Court, along with Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record.
The judgment does not reproduce the petitioner’s arguments in detailed separate headings. However, the record shows that the petitioner challenged the Ombudsperson’s order, the Governor’s decision, and the Lahore High Court judgment.
His position was that the findings against him should not stand and that the penalty of compulsory retirement should be interfered with.
The Supreme Court heard the petitioner’s counsel at some length. After reviewing the record and the High Court judgment, the Court found no jurisdictional error, illegality, or procedural irregularity.
Respondents’ Side Before the Supreme Court
The judgment records “Nemo for Respondents,” which means no one appeared for the respondents before the Supreme Court.
Even then, the Supreme Court carefully examined the matter. The Court looked at the record, the High Court judgment, the 2010 Act, the 2022 Amendment, constitutional principles, international instruments, global studies, and comparative case law.
This makes the judgment more valuable. The Court did not simply dismiss the petition. It used the case to explain the deeper meaning of workplace harassment, power, gender justice, and dignity.
Harassment at Workplace in Pakistan Is About Power
The Supreme Court began its judgment with a strong sentence: “Sexual harassment is not about sex. It is about power.”
This line explains the whole case. The Court treated harassment as a form of domination, control, and gender-based power.
A woman may be senior in position but still vulnerable to harassment. A junior employee may use social pressure, gendered privilege, rumours, and workplace culture to make her professional life difficult.
In this case, Dr. Sidra Zafar was a doctor and the petitioner was a driver. Still, the Court explained that formal rank is not the only source of power. Informal power can also create a hostile work environment.
This is one of the most important lessons of harassment at workplace in Pakistan. Harassment is not only about who is senior. It is about who is using conduct, words, social bias, or intimidation to control or humiliate another person.
What Is a Hostile Work Environment?
A hostile work environment exists when workplace conduct creates fear, humiliation, intimidation, or offensive conditions that affect a person’s ability to work.
The Supreme Court discussed two major forms of harassment identified in legal literature.
The first is quid pro quo harassment. This means “this for that.” It happens when sexual favours are demanded in exchange for workplace benefits or to avoid negative consequences.
The second is hostile work environment harassment. This happens when unwanted conduct rooted in gender creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive workplace.
The present case was important because the alleged conduct involved rumours, insults, non-consensual recording, and attacks on dignity. The Court recognized that such behaviour can create a hostile work environment even where the alleged harasser is not the superior officer.
Why Workplace Harassment Damages Women’s Professional Life
A workplace becomes unsafe when a woman has to defend her character instead of doing her work. Rumours, insults, and humiliation can become tools to push women out of professional spaces.
The Supreme Court explained that workplace harassment is a systemic problem. It restricts women’s economic and professional growth. It affects their wellbeing and reinforces gender inequality.
The Court referred to global data showing that more than one in five workers worldwide have experienced workplace violence or harassment. It also noted that Pakistan ranked 145th out of 146 countries in the Global Gender Gap Index 2024 and 142nd in economic participation.
These figures show why strong enforcement against harassment at workplace in Pakistan is necessary. Without safe workplaces, women cannot fully participate in the economy or public life.
The 2010 Act: Legal Protection Against Workplace Harassment
The Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 provides the main legal framework for workplace harassment complaints in Pakistan.
The Supreme Court noted that the Act aims to create safe working environments for all individuals, including women and transgender persons, free from harassment, abuse, and intimidation.
The law provides complaint mechanisms, including workplace inquiry committees and the office of the Ombudsperson.
This is important for public awareness. A person facing workplace harassment does not have to remain silent. The law provides a forum where complaints can be filed and decided.
For this reason, understanding the 2010 Act is essential for anyone dealing with harassment at workplace in Pakistan.
For further reading, citizens may study the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010.
The 2022 Amendment Expanded the Law
The Supreme Court also discussed the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Amendment) Act, 2022.
The 2022 amendment expanded the meaning of “employee.” It now includes informal workers without contracts, freelancers, domestic workers, interns, trainees, and others.
The meaning of “workplace” was also expanded. It now includes many places where professional services are rendered, such as educational institutions, courts, highways, studios, performance venues, sporting facilities, and gymnasiums.
The definition of harassment was also widened. It now includes gender-based discrimination, even where the conduct is not strictly sexual in nature.
This is very important because harassment can appear as character assassination, gender-based criticism, verbal abuse, humiliation, or conduct that creates an intimidating and hostile workplace.
Constitutional Rights Behind Workplace Safety
The Supreme Court connected workplace harassment with fundamental constitutional rights.
The Court referred to Article 14, which protects human dignity. It referred to Article 25, which protects equality. It also discussed Article 18, which relates to the right to work, and Article 34, which requires steps for full participation of women in national life.
This means harassment at workplace in Pakistan is not only a departmental issue. It is connected with dignity, equality, livelihood, and gender justice.
A person cannot truly enjoy the right to work if the workplace becomes a place of humiliation, fear, or gender-based hostility.
International Principles Discussed by the Court
The Supreme Court placed the case in a broader international context.
The Court discussed the ILO Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019, which sets a global standard for preventing workplace violence and harassment. The Court also referred to CEDAW, which protects women’s right to work in safe and equal conditions.
The judgment also mentioned the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
These references show that workplace dignity is recognized across the world. Pakistan’s law is part of a larger movement toward safe and equal workplaces.
International Cases Mentioned in the Judgment
The Supreme Court referred to important foreign judgments to explain workplace harassment jurisprudence.
In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized sexual harassment as sex discrimination and accepted hostile work environment as unlawful harassment.
In Harris v. Forklift Systems, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that a hostile or abusive environment may qualify as harassment even if there is no direct economic loss.
In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, the Indian Supreme Court recognized workplace harassment as a violation of fundamental rights and laid down guidelines for workplace protection.
In Janzen v. Platy Enterprises, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized sexual harassment as sex discrimination and said harassment is about power and control, not sexual attention.
In Carmichele v. Minister of Safety and Security, the Constitutional Court of South Africa emphasized the State’s duty to prevent gender-based violence and harassment.
These references helped the Supreme Court of Pakistan explain harassment at workplace in Pakistan through dignity, equality, and global legal development.
Pakistani Reference: Uzma Naveed Chaudhry Case
The judgment also referred to Uzma Naveed Chaudhry v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2022 SC 783.
This reference is important because it shows that Pakistani courts are developing their own workplace harassment jurisprudence.
The Court’s approach is clear: laws against workplace harassment must be interpreted in a way that protects human dignity, gender justice, and workplace equality.
Why the Petitioner’s Lower Rank Did Not Matter
Some people may think that only a boss can harass a junior employee. This judgment rejects that narrow idea.
The Court explained that even a subordinate can create a hostile work environment for a senior woman. This can happen when social norms, gendered privilege, and informal power are used to challenge her authority.
In this case, the petitioner was a driver and the complainant was a doctor. Yet the Court recognized that harassment can operate through social pressure and patriarchal behaviour.
This point is essential for understanding harassment at workplace in Pakistan. A person’s rank does not excuse harassment if his conduct attacks dignity, creates fear, or undermines a woman’s professional standing.
Why Compulsory Retirement Was Upheld
The Ombudsperson found the allegations proved and imposed compulsory retirement. The Governor upheld that decision. The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The Supreme Court then examined whether the High Court judgment had any legal error. It found none.
The Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner had been convincingly answered by the High Court. No jurisdictional error, illegality, or procedural irregularity was pointed out.
Therefore, leave to appeal was refused and the petition was dismissed.
This sends a strong message: proven workplace harassment can lead to serious service consequences.
Recommendation About the International Labour Organization
Before ending the judgment, the Supreme Court made an important recommendation.
The Court noted that Pakistan has not yet ratified the ILO Violence and Harassment Convention. It observed that ratifying the Convention would strengthen Pakistan’s commitment to preventing workplace harassment, promoting accountability, and protecting dignity at work.
The Court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Attorney-General for Pakistan for considering this recommendation with the relevant quarters.
This shows that the Court was not only deciding one dispute. It was also encouraging stronger national protection against harassment at workplace in Pakistan.
Readers may also study the ILO Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019, which recognizes the right to a workplace free from violence and harassment.
Practical Lessons for Pakistani Citizens
Every employee should know that workplace harassment should not be ignored.
Every woman should know that character assassination, rumours, verbal abuse, intimidation, and non-consensual recording can become serious workplace harassment issues.
Every employer should understand that a safe workplace is a legal duty, not a favour.
Every department should maintain inquiry mechanisms, complaint channels, and safe reporting systems.
Every accused person should also know that harassment complaints are decided through evidence, law, and proper procedure.
This judgment teaches that dignity must be protected at every level of employment.
You may also read more legal awareness articles in our Women Harassment category.
Key Takeaways
- Harassment at workplace in Pakistan is a serious legal and constitutional issue.
- Harassment is about power, control, dignity, and equality.
- A junior employee can also create a hostile work environment for a senior woman.
- The 2010 Act provides legal protection against workplace harassment.
- The 2022 Amendment expanded protection to more workers and workplaces.
- Harassment can include abuse, rumours, character assassination, intimidation, and non-consensual recording.
- Workplace harassment affects women’s economic participation and professional growth.
- Constitutional rights of dignity, equality, and work are involved.
- Strong judicial enforcement is necessary for safe workplaces.
- The Supreme Court refused leave and dismissed the petition.
Conclusion
This Supreme Court judgment is a strong and timely guide on harassment at workplace in Pakistan.
It explains that harassment is not always about physical contact or direct sexual demand. It can also be about humiliation, rumours, abusive language, character attacks, recording without consent, and creating a hostile work environment.
The judgment protects the idea that every person has the right to work with dignity. It also reminds employers, departments, and courts that workplace equality requires serious enforcement.
For ordinary citizens, the message is simple: a workplace must not become a place of fear. For institutions, the message is clear: dignity, safety, and equality are not optional.
Disclaimer
This article is for legal awareness and educational purposes only. It is not professional legal advice. For any personal legal matter, readers should consult a qualified lawyer.
FAQs
What was the main issue in PLD 2025 Supreme Court 354?
The main issue was whether the petitioner’s conduct amounted to workplace harassment and whether compulsory retirement from service was legally justified.
What is harassment at workplace in Pakistan?
Harassment at workplace in Pakistan includes conduct that creates intimidation, humiliation, abuse, gender-based hostility, or an unsafe working environment.
Which law applies to workplace harassment in Pakistan?
The main law is the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, along with amendments made in 2022.
What punishment was imposed in this case?
The Ombudsperson imposed the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service.
Did the Supreme Court interfere with the punishment?
No. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Can a junior employee harass a senior woman?
Yes. The Supreme Court explained that harassment is about power and social dynamics, not only formal office rank.
What is a hostile work environment?
A hostile work environment exists when conduct creates fear, humiliation, intimidation, or offensive conditions that affect a person’s ability to work.
What did the 2022 amendment change?
The 2022 amendment expanded the definitions of employee, workplace, complainant, and harassment to cover more people and situations.
Why did the Supreme Court discuss international law?
The Court discussed international principles to show that safe, harassment-free workplaces are part of dignity, equality, and human rights.
What is the final lesson of this judgment?
The final lesson is that workplace harassment must be strongly dealt with because dignity, equality, and professional safety cannot survive in a hostile workplace.