| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 5064 2025 SLD 5064 = 2025 PLC 1254 |
Islamabad High Court
Writ Petitions Nos.1387, 1548 of 2023 and 1811 of 2019, decided on 30th June, 2025.
Before Muhammad Asif, J
Muhammad Umair Baloch for Petitioner (in W.P. No. 1811/2019). Ms. Atiqa B Raza and Ch. Usama Tariq for
Respondents (in W.P. No. 1387/2023 and W.P. No. 1548/2023). Jawad Khurshid for
Respondent (in W.P. 1811/2019). Muhammad Younas, for ZTBL, Islamabad, M. Imran and Ms. Shaista Tabassum, A.A.G. for the State.
Writ Petitions Nos.1387, 1548 of 2023 and 1811 of 2019, decided on 30th June, 2025.
Before Muhammad Asif, J
Muhammad Umair Baloch for Petitioner (in W.P. No. 1811/2019). Ms. Atiqa B Raza and Ch. Usama Tariq for
Respondents (in W.P. No. 1387/2023 and W.P. No. 1548/2023). Jawad Khurshid for
Respondent (in W.P. 1811/2019). Muhammad Younas, for ZTBL, Islamabad, M. Imran and Ms. Shaista Tabassum, A.A.G. for the State.
TARIQ MEHMOOD and others
VERSUS
SHAZIA MUNIR and others
Law: Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010
Section: IV,2(h),8,10
Law: Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited Staff Regulations, 2005
Section: 17
Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act (IV of 2010)-------Ss.2 (h), 8 & 10---Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited Staff Regulations, 2005, Regln. 17---Harassment at workplace---Proof---Reinstating in service---Petitioner / employee of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (ZTBL) was removed from service on a complaint filed by respondent whose services were terminated during her period of probation---Validity---Competent authority of ZTBL terminated services of respondent while she was still serving within the prescribed period of probation--Such termination was carried out in compliance with the terms and conditions laid down in letter of appointment and in consonance with the provisions of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited Staff Regulations, 2005, without any allegation of misconduct or punitive stigma attached to the order of termination---Respondent was a probationer at the relevant time, who had not acquired any vested or indefeasible right to continue in service beyond probationary period, unless and until she was expressly confirmed in writing by the competent authority--Termination was within the legal framework and effected during subsistence of probation of respondent, which was well within the legal competence of the employer and did not suffer from any legal infirmity---Ombudsman while passing order in question had grossly misinterpreted and misapplied the powers conferred upon it under S. 10 of Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010---Limited powers were conferred upon competent authority or Ombudsman, which were required to be exercised strictly within the confines of the statute and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, procedural fairness, and established legal norms---Provision of S. 10 of Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 delineates the scope of authority available to Ombudsman in determining complaints of harassment as defined under S. 2(h) ofProtection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010--Ombudsman is required to evaluate evidence, conduct hearings, and pass a reasoned and well-founded order based on credible material on record---High Court set…