Federal Constitutional Court rules that workplace misconduct generally falls under the 2010 harassment law only when it carries a sexual dimension, departing from a broader Supreme Court interpretation.
ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN — WEB DESK: Pakistan’s Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has narrowed the scope of workplace harassment actionable under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, ruling that misconduct or objectionable workplace behaviour does not fall within the ombudsperson’s jurisdiction unless it has a sexual dimension.
A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan issued the ruling in a judgment authored by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi. The court held that while certain workplace behaviour may generally be described as harassment, it does not necessarily constitute an actionable offence under the 2010 law unless the statutory requirements are met.
The FCC interpreted Section 2(h) of the Act as requiring a sexual element for conduct to become actionable before the workplace harassment ombudsperson. It said misconduct or behaviour unbecoming of an employee could still have serious consequences but would not automatically fall within the Act’s definition of harassment.
The ruling represents a departure from a 2025 Supreme Court interpretation cited in the judgment. According to the Tribune’s report, the Supreme Court had taken a broader approach, holding that workplace harassment could encompass gender-based discrimination and the creation of a hostile working environment, including conduct arising from power and domination rather than sexual desire.
The FCC disagreed with that broader reading of the statute. It held that although the Act’s preamble refers generally to harassment, the operative definition in Section 2(h) determines which conduct can be pursued under the law.
However, the court also drew a distinction between ordinary misconduct and gender-based sexual discrimination. It observed that gender-based sexual discrimination arising from a prejudicial mindset and producing discriminatory behaviour could be actionable under the Act. Where the necessary sexual element is absent, other workplace or departmental disciplinary mechanisms may instead apply.
The bench further observed that the legislation protects both working women and men against workplace harassment falling within the statutory definition.
The judgment could have significant implications for how workplace harassment complaints are assessed before ombudspersons, particularly where allegations concern intimidation, hostile conduct or other misconduct without an alleged sexual component. The precise practical impact will depend on how the ruling is applied in subsequent cases and proceedings.
