Lahore High Court Sets New Legal Principle in Workplace Harassment Case

Lahore: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has upheld the decision of the Punjab Ombudsperson to dismiss a Director Management of a vocational institute for harassing a female teacher, while also laying down a new legal principle that workplace harassment is not limited to the office premises alone.
Justice Raheel Kamran Sheikh issued a 17-page written judgment on a petition filed by Umar Shehzad, rejecting his request for reinstatement. The court ruled that harassment of women at the workplace can extend beyond office buildings if it involves misuse of authority linked to employment.
According to the judgment, the petitioner argued that the alleged harassment did not take place at the workplace but at the complainant’s home, and therefore fell outside the jurisdiction of the Punjab Ombudsperson. His counsel maintained that the ombudsperson could only hear cases strictly related to harassment within office premises.
Rejecting this argument, the court observed that the petitioner allegedly threatened the complainant with termination of her job if she did not agree to develop illicit relations with him. Such conduct, the court held, clearly amounts to misuse of authority and falls within the ambit of workplace harassment laws.
The judgment emphasized that women often hesitate to immediately report harassment due to concerns over personal dignity, family honor, and social stigma. Initial silence by a complainant, the court noted, does not imply consent nor does it deprive her of the right to report the incident later.
The court further stated that attempts by the petitioner to question the complainant’s personal character could not obscure his own conduct. The female teacher had accused him of staring at her inappropriately, sending messages seeking illicit relations, and threatening to cancel her appointment if she did not comply. She also alleged that in September 2022, the petitioner came to her home and attempted to sexually assault her.
The petitioner claimed the allegations were false and driven by personal vendetta, asserting that the complaint was filed after the cancellation of a residential quarter allotted to the complainant’s brother, who was employed with TEVTA. However, these claims were not accepted by the court.
The judgment noted that the Punjab Ombudsperson, after hearing the complaint, ordered the petitioner’s dismissal from service. An appeal against this decision was rejected by the Governor of Punjab, who upheld the ombudsperson’s findings. The petitioner then approached the Lahore High Court.
Justice Raheel Kamran Sheikh ruled that courts can only interfere in such matters where there is a clear legal irregularity, which was not found in this case. The court also rejected the petitioner’s argument that proceedings before the ombudsperson could not continue while criminal proceedings were underway, clarifying that the ombudsperson deals only with disciplinary action, while criminal trials and punishments are separate.
The court observed that the petitioner did not deny the WhatsApp chats presented as evidence and found no illegality in the decisions of the Punjab Ombudsperson or the Governor. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.