Farhan Qureshi 
In a significant judgment on the ambit of the Protection Against Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2010, Pakistan’s Federal Shariah Court has ruled on the Pakistan workplace harassment law, stating that the act constituting harassment under the statute must be sexual in nature. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan set aside the Islamabad High Court verdict in a case of workplace harassment by employees of the National Bank of Pakistan.
The ruling interprets the statutory definition more narrowly than some prior court decisions. The FCC held that the definition in Section 2(h) was exhaustive and not open-ended. This means that misconduct in the workplace or inappropriate behaviour without a sexual element is not automatically within the ombudsperson’s jurisdiction under the Act.
The ruling has thus shone fresh light on the legal separation between sexual harassment and the broader universe of workplace misconduct. The distinction is especially important for Pakistan’s employers, employees and institutional grievance mechanisms, as different forms of inappropriate behaviour may now need to be addressed under different legal or administrative frameworks.
FCC Decision In National Bank Employment Case
The case before the FCC was based on a complaint made by a female employee of National Bank of Pakistan in 2012. The complainant, after reporting alleged workplace sexual harassment, first approached the bank’s president and then contacted a divisional head by telephone and email, according to the court record, Dawn reported. When these efforts failed to bring relief, the complaint eventually found its way to the Federal Ombudsman.
The complaint was entertained by the Federal Ombudsman, who imposed compulsory retirement on the petitioners in terms of relevant provisions of the 2010 Act. The President later commuted the punishment to censure, while the Islamabad High Court later restored the original order of the Ombudsman. The employees challenged the High Court decision before the Federal Constitutional Court.
The FCC weighed in on the limits of judicial review under the Constitution and the statutory definition of harassment. It held that the High Court had exceeded the permissible limits of interference with the factual and legal findings of the specialised forum. It also held that the Act could not be invoked to remedy conduct outside its statutory definition.
2010 Act Creates The Legal Framework For Harassment
Pakistan’s Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act was passed to provide a formal mechanism for protection of workers from harassment and to create safer working conditions. The Ministry of Human Rights still lists the 2010 legislation in Pakistan’s national human rights framework, as well as subsequent amendments and related protections.
The original statutory definition includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, communications or physical conduct of a sexual nature, sexually demeaning attitudes and conduct which interfere with work or create an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment. The statutory language has been central to the judicial debate on whether hostile working conditions themselves must contain a sexual or gender-related element for them to fall within the Act.
The amendment broadened key elements of the protection framework, including the definition of who could be a complainant. The Supreme Court judgment on the amended law noted that the substitution of the words “a woman or man” with “any person” has brought transgender persons within the ambit of the statutory protection along with women and men. The same judgment associated safety at work with the constitutional guarantees of livelihood, dignity, equality and freedom of occupation.
The Ministry of Human Rights has also previously described the 2022 amendment as an expansion of the definition of workplace harassment and the scope of protection. This legislative change is relevant to the present discussion because the FCC’s latest interpretation involves the application of the statutory definition within the bounds of the amended legal regime.
Fcc Interpretation Is Not The Same As The Earlier Supreme Court Approach
The new FCC decision stands in stark contrast to an earlier Supreme Court ruling on workplace harassment. In 2021, the Supreme Court had, in a judgment later considered in review proceedings, examined whether harassment could extend beyond conduct directly related to sex and had viewed gender discrimination and hostile working environments as part of the broader constitutional purpose of workplace protection.
And a 2025 Supreme Court decision also characterised workplace sexual harassment as about control and domination, not just sexual desire. That interpretation was reported within the framework of a case concerning a compulsory retirement order and captured a wider sense of how power dynamics can play out in workplace harassment.
The FCC has now taken a different statutory approach, emphasising that the definition in Section 2(h) should be treated as exhaustive. The outcome establishes a significant judicial distinction between the FCC’s interpretation of the statute and prior Supreme Court reasoning, leaving future interpretation and any legislative response as areas of ongoing legal interest.
Gender Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment Prompt Legal Questions
The ruling also poses the important question of workplace behaviour that may be discriminatory, intimidating or hostile, but which has no obvious sexual element. The Supreme Court had earlier indicated that denial of equal opportunities, criticism based on gender and abusive work environments could be covered by the concept of harassment if they touched upon workplace rights and dignity.
The FCC’s newest interpretation gives more importance to the statutory definition itself. On that view, general bullying, misconduct or other objectionable behaviour does not become actionable harassment under the 2010 Act simply because it creates a difficult working environment. The ruling said the specialised jurisdiction of the Act still required a sexual dimension.
This does not mean that every type of misconduct in the workplace is taken out of the purview of legal accountability in Pakistan. The ruling, however, poses the question of what other employment, disciplinary, civil or criminal mechanisms should deal with behaviour which the harassment statute does not cover. Clear institutional procedures can therefore still be important for keeping workplace standards above the specific jurisdiction of the 2010 Act.
Protection Still Matters For Pakistan’s Workplace Institutions
The judgment also stresses the necessity of well-functioning mechanisms for workplace inquiry. Pakistan’s legal framework requires organisations covered under the law to maintain procedures through which complaints can be examined, and recent reporting has highlighted the role of inquiry committees in providing formal channels for workplace harassment cases.
Separately, the Supreme Court has directed educational institutions, both public and private, to display the relevant code of conduct and form in-house inquiry committees for complaints of harassment. These measures are indicative of the continued institutional focus on preventing sexual harassment and ensuring that complaints can be handled through defined processes.
A recent ruling for Pakistani organisations highlights the need to correctly evaluate the nature of a complaint before choosing a legal recourse. Employers can address complaints and protect due process and dignity in the workplace through strong internal policies, properly constituted committees and documented procedures, and awareness of statutory boundaries.
Legal Clarity Could Boost Workplace Protection In Pakistan
These differing judicial interpretations have highlighted the need for clarity in Pakistan’s workplace protection framework. The Ministry of Human Rights’ Business and Human Rights platform has itself identified definitional ambiguities and called for the consideration of amendments to clarify and, where required, expand protections against different forms of harassment in workplaces.
A clearer framework could distinguish sexual harassment from gender discrimination, bullying, retaliation, abuse of authority and other types of workplace misconduct and provide appropriate remedies for each type. Such clarity could remove uncertainty for employees, employers, inquiry committees, and expert forums concerned with complaints.
Pakistan already has a legal and institutional framework of which further development can be made. If the statutory language and enforcement responsibilities are kept clearly defined, the 2010 Act, its 2022 amendment, judicial decisions and the Ministry of Human Rights’ wider workplace rights initiatives can contribute to a more coherent system.
Debate On Workplace Rights Could Lead To Higher Standards For Institutions
The FCC ruling has narrowed Pakistan’s debate on workplace rights to a single legal question: how should the statutory concept of harassment be interpreted to cover workplace misconduct that is not sexual in nature? For purposes of the 2010 Act, the court’s answer to that question is narrow, whereas earlier Supreme Court interpretations of hostile environments and gender-based discrimination have been broader.
The development does not end the wider debate on dignity of work and employee protection in Pakistan. Instead, it highlights the need for employers, regulators, and policymakers to maintain clear boundaries between different forms of misconduct while ensuring serious workplace issues have an appropriate institutional outlet.
The next chapter of the debate for Pakistan will probably focus on the need for statutory clarity, consistent enforcement and the relationship between specialised harassment law and other workplace protections. A clear legal framework backed by working inquiry mechanisms and evidence-based institutional policies can offer greater certainty and help to ensure safer and more dignified workplaces across the country.
