Work changed.
Its protections
had to follow.
The legal questions are practical: who is covered, what conduct is prohibited, how the complaint is proved and what the institution must do.
In this article 5 chapters + sources
Begin with the person and the setting.
Imagine a worker excluded from assignments because she is a woman. Nobody makes a sexual demand.
Can that still be workplace harassment? Yes, the absence of sexual content does not end the inquiry. The conduct must still meet the applicable statutory definition.1
This article explains the federal 2010 Act as amended in 2022. Check which federal or provincial law and forum govern a particular workplace; do not assume every provision or deadline is identical.
The central balance is straightforward: protect access to work with dignity, and decide disputed facts fairly.
From dignity to an enforceable workplace right
Articles 9, 14 and 25 protect life and liberty according to law, human dignity, equality and freedom from sex discrimination.
In Uzma Naveed Chaudhary, the Supreme Court connected a workplace made hostile by harassment with livelihood, dignity and equality.2
This is not merely an internal staffing problem. Gendered coercion or hostility can affect a person’s ability to work.
The judgment put the connection plainly:
“Only a safe working environment meets the constitutional standard of fundamental rights.”
Article 10A matters too. Protection does not remove the right to a fair hearing.
Sections 3 to 5 require a properly constituted committee, written charges, a meaningful defence, production and testing of evidence, confidentiality and reasoned findings.
The process is principally disciplinary and compensatory, not a criminal trial. That distinction does not make fair procedure optional.
The definition of work
cannot stop at an office door.
What Parliament changed in 2022
The older law was often read through the model of a permanent, salaried worker in an office. The amendment broadened both who is covered and what conduct is prohibited.3
Unwelcome advances, sexual conduct, stalking, sexual demands and the related statutory forms.
Gender-based disadvantage can fall within the law even when it is not sexual.
The work relationship reaches beyond payroll
Coverage includes regular, contractual, temporary and part-time work, along with freelance, gig, domestic, home-based and voluntary work.
It also includes students, performers, artists, interns and trainees. Former employees can complain; for a minor, a parent or guardian can act.
The workplace can include educational, performance, sporting, virtual and other work-linked settings outside an office.
The connection to work matters more than the office door. Leaving employment does not itself extinguish the complaint.
Two kinds of conduct
Sexual harassment: unwelcome advances, requests for sexual favours, stalking or cyber stalking, sexual communications or physical conduct, sexually demeaning attitudes and the related statutory forms.
The definition also addresses hostile-environment conduct, retaliation for refusal and demands made a condition of employment.
Gender discrimination: disadvantage based on gender that need not be sexual, but reflects a prejudicial mindset producing discriminatory behaviour.
For the worker denied assignments, the question is whether evidence connects that disadvantage to gender. Merely labelling a disagreement “harassment” is not enough.
Must it happen repeatedly?
Not always. The statutory code recognises that a sufficiently serious single incident can create fear, panic or discomfort and constitute harassment.
Severity can matter without repetition. Conversely, ordinary friction, poor management or disagreement does not automatically become gender-based harassment.
Nadia Naz
Read the correction of the earlier narrow interpretation alongside the amended statute.
Nadia Naz and the correction of a narrowing precedent
The first Nadia Naz decision, PLD 2021 SC 784, read the earlier definition narrowly, requiring demonstrably sexual conduct.
On review, the Supreme Court set that decision aside in PLD 2023 SC 588 and remanded the dispute for decision under the correct approach.4
- 2021Original decisionRead the pre-amendment definition narrowly, around sexual conduct.Set aside on review
- 2022Amended statuteExpanded relationships, settings and gender-discrimination protection.
- 2023Review judgmentProtective purpose, gendered harm and a reasonable-woman perspective.
What changed in the reasoning?
The Court connected the Act to its protective purpose and equality. Gender-based hostility does not become harmless simply because it contains no sexual proposition.
It adopted a reasonable-woman perspective for assessing the environment.
That means examining context and effect without assuming male workplace norms are neutral. It is not permission to decide by intuition instead of evidence.
The Court also treated the 2022 amendment as clarifying the protection. Whether amended language applies to earlier events remains a separate question about retrospectivity, applying a later law to earlier conduct.
Do not revive an artificially narrow interpretation. Do not skip the applicable-version question either.
A complaint needs
a lawful place
to be heard.
The forum question should establish coverage and the applicable route before the merits are decided.
Identify the covered relationship using the applicable statutory definitions. Do not assume jurisdiction from the allegation alone.
Meera Shafi and the jurisdictional lesson
A refusal to hear a complaint does not necessarily decide whether it is true.
In Meera Shafi v Office of the Governor Punjab, PLD 2020 Lahore 54, the High Court upheld a jurisdictional conclusion under the older text: the project-based performer did not meet the required employee relationship.
Establish the work relationship and setting. A jurisdictional refusal does not decide whether the allegation is true.
That was a decision about the forum’s legal power, not a finding on the underlying allegations.
The 2022 amendment expressly includes performers, artists, freelancers and other nonstandard workers. A complaint should nevertheless identify the covered status, work-linked setting, alleged conduct and relevant statutory branch.
A video-conference case answered a different question
Meera Shafi v Ali Zafar, PLD 2023 SC 211, concerned civil defamation proceedings. The Supreme Court permitted the remaining cross-examination through video conference.5
It did not decide the harassment allegations. The relevant lesson is narrower: digital participation can preserve access to a hearing without removing cross-examination.
How to choose the forum and preserve the claim
Section 8 gives a choice: the organisation’s inquiry committee or the Ombudsperson.
An employer cannot insist on an exclusively internal route where the statute gives that choice.
The section 3 committee has three members, at least one a woman, with the prescribed management and employee representation. A conflicted member must be replaced.
The routes have different clocks
| Step | Inquiry committee | Ombudsperson |
|---|---|---|
| Initial notice | Written charges within three days | Show-cause notice within three days |
| Defence | Ordinarily seven days | Five days |
| Decision process | Findings and recommendations within thirty days of initiating inquiry | Section 8 governs the decision and appeal timetable |
A section 6 appeal against the competent authority’s decision goes to the Ombudsperson within thirty days.
A further representation under section 9 goes to the President or Governor, as applicable, within thirty days.
Constitutional review is not a fresh witness hearing
Article 199 review supervises legality. Jurisdictional error, unfair procedure, misreading or ignoring material evidence, and other legal defects may justify intervention.
Ordinarily, a different possible factual inference is not enough to displace concurrent findings of the specialist forums.
Muhammad Din: rank did not answer the allegation
A driver argued that a lady doctor’s higher rank made harassment by him implausible.
The Supreme Court rejected that shortcut. Workplace alliances, access and gendered hostility can give a junior employee influence over someone formally senior.
Outcome: leave was declined, the petition dismissed and compulsory retirement left in place.6
The case does not presume guilt from an unequal relationship. Examine the working reality and proved conduct, not just the organisation chart.
The organisation chart
Who has the senior title?
The working reality
Who can spread rumours, mobilise colleagues or make another person’s work hostile?
Listen carefully.
Give an answer.
Explain the finding.
A protective statute still requires fair fact-finding. A fair process must also make participation possible.
The complainant’s participation
Confidentiality, protection from retaliation and a meaningful opportunity to present the account and supporting material.
The respondent’s opportunity to answer
Clear notice of the allegation and a meaningful opportunity to respond to relevant evidence.
How the complaint is proved
The standard is balance of probabilities: whether the account is more likely than not on the evidence.
It is not the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
In Nadia Sarwar, the Islamabad High Court applied that civil standard and the reasonable-woman perspective. It also rejected treating a workplace complaint as if it required the technical drafting of a criminal information or formal pleading.7
What evidence can help?
Messages, emails, call records, access logs, calendars, relevant medical material and testimony about immediate disclosure can support an account.
Section 5 permits witnesses, documents, audio or video and affidavits. The respondent must know the charge and be able to test adverse evidence.
Section 4 protects against pressure and adverse action during inquiry and permits accompaniment or representation. Participation and fair testing belong together.
What if reporting was delayed?
Uzma Naveed Chaudhary recognised social and professional pressures that may prevent immediate reporting.8
Delay is neither an automatic defence nor irrelevant. Examine the explanation, surviving records, material consistency and supporting or contradicting evidence.
An unsuccessful complaint is not automatically fabricated
Section 5(3) permits the committee to recommend action to the Ombudsperson where allegations are found false and made with mala fide intent, meaning bad faith.9
Both findings are needed. Failure to prove the complaint does not by itself establish deliberate fabrication.
“Not proved” and “made up in bad faith” are different conclusions.
What should change
after the finding?
Address the harm and protect participation.
Tie the response to proved conduct.
Correct failures and prevent retaliation.
Remedies for the person and the institution
A decision may need to address the wrongdoer, the person harmed and the employer’s systems.
A penalty must be implemented
Section 4 permits minor and major penalties, including censure, withheld promotion or increment, demotion, compulsory retirement, removal, dismissal, fine and relevant professional-licence consequences.
Compensation and support can also matter, including counselling, medical treatment and leave.
The competent authority must implement the recommended penalty within one week of receiving the recommendations.
Section 4(6) requires regular committee monitoring until implementation is satisfactory. Section 4(7) requires specified support where the complainant is in trauma.9
Sending the decision is not the same as carrying it out.
The employer has continuing duties
Section 11 requires implementation of the Act, a committee, a designated competent authority, and incorporation and display of the code.
Display must be in English and a language understood by the majority of employees.9
An employee can petition the District Court over employer non-compliance, exposing the employer to the statutory fine. Prevention is a legal duty, not merely a human-resources preference.
Before a complaint, put the essentials in place: a notified committee, conflict rules, secure records, confidential channels, anti-retaliation measures, reasoned orders and training tied to the actual definition.
What follows
Return to the worker denied assignments. The absence of a sexual demand does not end the case.
Ask whether the work relationship is covered, whether the conduct fits the law, what the evidence establishes and what response follows.
The complainant needs meaningful access and protection. The respondent needs notice and a fair chance to answer. The institution needs to implement the result.
Broader protection and fair procedure are not competing goals. The article’s practical point is to make both work.
Bibliography
Cases
-
Muhammad Din v Province of Punjab, PLD 2025 SC 354 / 2025 SCP 41, paras 1–7, 13. Leave declined; petition dismissed. Judgment.
-
Meera Shafi v Ali Zafar, PLD 2023 SC 211. Supreme Court judgment.
-
Meera Shafi v Office of the Governor Punjab, PLD 2020 Lahore 54.
-
Nadia Naz v President of Pakistan, PLD 2021 SC 784.
-
Nadia Naz v President of Pakistan, PLD 2023 SC 588. Supreme Court review judgment.
-
Nadia Sarwar v Aqeel Abbas, W.P. No 105 of 2015, Islamabad High Court, judgment dated 31 December 2024. Official judgment.
-
Uzma Naveed Chaudhary v Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2022 SC 783. Supreme Court judgment.
Legislation
- Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Articles 4, 9, 10A, 14, 25 and 199.
- Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Work Place Act, 2010, sections 2 to 11. Official consolidated text updated through 22 August 2022.
- Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Amendment) Act, 2022 (Act V of 2022).
Other Materials
- Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Work Place Act, 2010, Schedule, Code of Conduct for Protection Against Harassment at the Workplace.
Footnotes
-
Nadia Naz v President of Pakistan, PLD 2023 SC 588, review of PLD 2021 SC 784, especially the Court’s discussion of gender-based harassment and the reasonable-woman standard. ↩
-
Uzma Naveed Chaudhary v Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2022 SC 783, paras 8 to 12. ↩
-
Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Amendment) Act, 2022, sections 2 and 7; consolidated 2010 Act, sections 2(a), 2(e), 2(f), 2(h), 2(l) and 2(n). ↩
-
Nadia Naz, PLD 2023 SC 588. The review judgment was delivered on 14 March 2023. ↩
-
Meera Shafi v Ali Zafar, PLD 2023 SC 211, Civil Petition No 1795 of 2022. ↩
-
Muhammad Din v Province of Punjab, PLD 2025 SC 354 / 2025 SCP 41, paras 1–7 and 13: informal workplace power, gendered hostility and the rejected seniority argument; leave declined and petition dismissed. Judgment. ↩
-
Nadia Sarwar v Aqeel Abbas, W.P. No 105 of 2015, Islamabad High Court, judgment dated 31 December 2024. ↩
-
Uzma Naveed Chaudhary, PLD 2022 SC 783. ↩
-
Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Work Place Act, 2010, sections 4(5)–(7), 5(3) and 11(1): implementation, support, false and mala fide allegations, and accessible display of the code. Consolidated Act. ↩ ↩2 ↩3