Workplace harassment

EDITORIAL: The issue is commonly misconstrued as the following details show. A woman, Nadia Naz, working with the state-run Pakistan Television was sacked in May of 2017 while her complaint of harassment at workplace was still pending with the Federal Ombudsman’s office, though it was rejected five months later, apparently, based on the thinking it lacked sufficient grounds to be entertained.

She approached the Islamabad High Court (IHC), only to face disappointment again. She went into appeal before the Supreme Court to find the IHC’s decision upheld. She knocked at President Arif Alvi’s door and received the same response.

Not the one to give up easily she, joined by the office of the Attorney General for Pakistan, moved separate petitions seeking review of the apex court’s July 6, 2021 ruling, taken up by a two-member SC bench comprising Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Ayesha A. Malik.

In their landmark judgement delivered on Tuesday the two learned judges termed the ‘Protection Against Harassment of Women at Workplace Act’, which informed all the previous decisions as “cosmetic legislation blinkered in its application”.

Noting that the President and the IHC had decided the case in the understanding that harassment meant offence of sexual nature, the court has referred the case back to the President for reconsideration.

All the earlier decisions missed the important point that contrary to the generally held view, harassment at workplace is not limited to sexual harassment; it can occur in different forms such as ridicule, insults, nasty jokes and reprimands designed as put-downs to snub or humiliate a subordinate.

At the back of such offensive behaviour is pervasive gender bias. It comes out in all sorts of situations and places.

If a man performs poorly or makes a mistake, say while driving a car, it is ignored as something that can happen, but a similar slip-up by a female driver is promptly attributed to her gender. Workplace harassment, as Justice Malik aptly observed in her judgement, results in serious consequences, among the main ones is gender inequality.

While pointing out that the July 6 verdict lacked understanding of the scope of the law to reach proper conclusion, the honourable justice also explained that the issue is grounded in equal opportunity and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment, adding that sexual harassment in any form is demeaning as it aims to reduce the dignity of an employee forced to endure such conduct. In his additional note Justice Afridi took a similar view of issue and to return the case to President Alvi for his assent.

That should not take long considering that he is an ardent advocate of women’s rights. The court has set a valuable precedent which will benefit not only women but also men faced with hostile work environment that can be highly hurtful, like in the present case. The petitioner, Nadia Naz, deserves no small amount of credit for her indefatigable fight for justice.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023