Giving a landmark judgment on harassment of women at workplace, the Lahore High Court (LHC) on Tuesday ruled that harassment of women was not confined to office buildings alone.
The high court ruled that even incidents occurring outside the workplace fell within the ambit of the law, and in such circumstances, the provincial ombudsperson retained full jurisdiction.
The sixteen-page judgment was released by Justice Raheel Kamran Sheikh on a petition filed by a citizen, Umar Shehzad.
The petitioner had approached the court challenging the decisions of the female ombudsperson and the governor of Punjab.
In its written judgment, the court said that the definitions of “workplace” and “harassment” must be read together in accordance with the law.
The court observed that the statutory definition of a workplace was very broad, and the definition of harassment itself clearly indicated that it was not limited to the physical boundaries of an office building.
The court further ruled that the mere fact that two individuals are colleagues is not sufficient to establish harassment. However, if the legal ingredients prescribed by law are fulfilled, an incident occurring outside the office premises may also constitute harassment.
Referring to the prevailing social context, the court observed that it was an unfortunate reality of society that women often did not report incidents of harassment immediately due to fear of social stigma and concerns about family honour.
The court categorically stated that the silence of a victim or any delay in reporting harassment could not be used against her.
The court also ruled that the registration of an FIR relating to harassment did not curtail the jurisdiction of the ombudsperson.
Even if the incident of harassment occurred outside the office, the provincial ombudsperson remained empowered to take action.
During the hearing, Assistant Advocate General Muhammad Osman Khan, representing the Punjab government, defended the decisions taken by the Punjab governor and the provincial ombudsperson, submitting that both decisions were in accordance with the law and did not warrant judicial interference.
Agreeing with the arguments of the assistant advocate general, the LHC said that the petitioner failed to point out any legal defect in the findings of the provincial ombudsperson.
The Court observed that the decisions of the ombudsperson and the governor of Punjab were not only lawful but were also based on a proper and thorough appraisal of the available evidence.
Consequently, the court dismissed the petition and reaffirmed that incidents of harassment might occur outside the workplace, and in such cases, the jurisdiction of the Provincial Ombudsperson remained intact.
