| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 2486 2026 SLD 2486 = 2026 PLC 1 |
Islamabad High Court
Writ Petition No.3563 of 2017, decided on 9th July, 2025.
Presented By: Muhammad Azam Khan, J
Ms. Imaan Zainab Hazir for Petitioner. Sabir Hussain for
Respondents Nos.3, 4 and 5. Raja Zamir ud Din Ahmed, Assistant Attorney General. Assisted by Ms. Amna Danial Khawaja, Judicial Law Clerk.
Writ Petition No.3563 of 2017, decided on 9th July, 2025.
Presented By: Muhammad Azam Khan, J
Ms. Imaan Zainab Hazir for Petitioner. Sabir Hussain for
Respondents Nos.3, 4 and 5. Raja Zamir ud Din Ahmed, Assistant Attorney General. Assisted by Ms. Amna Danial Khawaja, Judicial Law Clerk.
Dr. ZUBAIDA CHAUDHARY, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
VERSUS
PRESIDENT ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, PRESIDENT S SECRETARIATE (PUBLIC) AIWAN-E-SADAR, ISLAMABAD and 4 others
Law: Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010
Section: 1(2), 3, 4, 11
Law: Constitution of Pakistan
Section: 9, 14, 18, 25, 27
Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act (IV of 2010) Ss.1(2), 3, 4 & 11---Workplace harassment complaint---Defective formation of inquiry committee, challenge to---Constituting an inquiry committee having gender disparity---Increasing the members of inquiry committee from three to five---Permissibility---Accused harassers not being subjected to cross-examination---Effect on inquiry proceedings---The petitioner (victim) was an associate professor at a university who lodged a complaint before the Federal Ombudsman alleging various incidents occurring during her employment, after which the Ombudsman imposed penalties upon respondents Nos. 3 to 5 (accused harassers)---Both sides filed representations before the President of Pakistan, who dismissed the petitioner s representation while accepting those of Respondents Nos.3 to 5---The petitioner then filed the present constitutional petition challenging the President s order---Held: Perusal of the inquiry report showed that the harassment committee comprised of five members which was not in consonance with the mandate of S.3 of the Act, 2010---Section 3(2) of the Act, 2010 mandated in unequivocal terms that the inquiry committee had to consist of three members---The composition was further qualified by express criteria, i.e., one member must be a woman, one from senior management, and one a senior representative of the employees (or a senior employee where no CBA exists)---The statutory prescription of a three-member panel was deliberate and rooted in legislative intent, which was to ensure a fair, impartial, and gender-balanced inquiry process through a compact and manageable structure---Provisions of Ss. 3 and 11 of the Act were to be treated as mandatory in nature rather than directory---The organization, in the present case, had not constituted the inquiry committee in accordance with S. 3 of the Act, 2010 at the time of filing of the complaint by the petitioner, therefore, the organization constituting a five-member committee, having a gender disparity, expressly violated the mandatory provisions of the Act, 2010---Constitution of a five-member inquiry committee represented a…