Not Every Inappropriate Workplace Act Constitutes Harassment, Court Rules
Federal Constitutional Court says the 2010 workplace law requires a sexual element for conduct to fall within its statutory definition, while employers remain free to act against inappropriate behaviour under service rules.
ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that a sexual element is necessary for conduct to fall within the scope of harassment actionable under the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, holding that every undesirable, inappropriate or harmful workplace interaction does not automatically attract proceedings under the law.
The ruling came in petitions filed by National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) officers Usman Shahid and Aqeel Abbas against an Islamabad High Court judgment in a case involving NBP employee Nadia Sarwar. A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan and comprising Justice Ali Baqar Najafi and Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah heard the matter. The detailed judgment was authored by Justice Najafi.
The FCC held that conduct which may be undesirable or inappropriate, but lacks the sexual element required by the statute, does not fall within the Federal Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction under the 2010 Act. At the same time, the court made clear that such conduct is not necessarily beyond disciplinary scrutiny: an employer may proceed against an employee under applicable service or disciplinary rules where circumstances warrant.
The judgment said the workplace law was enacted to provide protection against sexual harassment and could not be extended to every general workplace grievance merely because the alleged behaviour was objectionable. The court’s interpretation therefore distinguishes between conduct covered by the statutory harassment regime and other workplace misconduct that may be dealt with internally.
Case Has Lengthy Procedural History
The dispute has a lengthy procedural history. According to the IHC record, Sarwar, who had worked at NBP since 2008, complained about the conduct of the two officers and ultimately approached the Federal Ombudsperson under the 2010 Act after alleging that her complaints within the bank had not resulted in appropriate action.
The Federal Ombudsperson imposed a major penalty against the officers. They subsequently approached the President of Pakistan through representations. The President set aside the major punishment and substituted a minor penalty of censure. Sarwar challenged that outcome before the Islamabad High Court.
On December 31, 2024, the Islamabad High Court allowed her petition and set aside the President’s order, restoring the Ombudsperson’s decision. The two officers then challenged the IHC judgment before the Federal Constitutional Court.
The FCC has now allowed their petitions, set aside the Islamabad High Court’s December 31, 2024 judgment and restored the President’s order.
Court Addresses President, High Court Jurisdiction
The court also addressed the respective jurisdiction of the President and constitutional courts in such proceedings. It held that the President is empowered to hear representations against decisions of the Federal Ombudsperson, while a High Court’s intervention in constitutional jurisdiction remains confined to recognised grounds such as legal or jurisdictional error, abuse of authority and violations of principles of natural justice.
The uploaded judgment identifies the matter as CPLA Nos. 1011 and 1113 of 2025 and records the hearing date as July 23, 2026. The ruling adds to the developing jurisprudence on the legal boundary between statutory workplace harassment and other forms of employee misconduct.
