Employment

Workplace Harassment Law in Sindh: What Employers and Complainants in Karachi Need to Know

Harassment complaints arising in Karachi offices, factories, hospitals and universities are decided under a federal statute enacted in 2010 and widened in 2022, applied in Sindh through a provincial Ombudsperson. Most avoidable problems arise in the first fortnight: an employer with no functioning inquiry committee, or a complainant who files in the wrong forum or misses an appeal deadline. People searching for the best workplace harassment lawyer in Karachi usually need one decision made first, namely whether to use the employer's inquiry committee or go straight to the Ombudsperson, because that choice fixes the timetable, the evidence rules and the appeal route. This guide sets out both routes, the employer's legal duties and the points that are still argued in court.

Which law applies in Karachi in 2026

The governing statute is the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 (Act IV of 2010). Section 1(2) extends it to the whole of Pakistan, and section 7 requires the Federal Government and each provincial government to appoint an Ombudsperson. In Sindh that office is the Provincial Ombudsman Sindh (Protection against Harassment of Women at Workplace), based at the New Sindh Secretariat in Karachi, which describes its mandate by reference to the 2010 Act.

Sindh has not enacted a workplace harassment statute of its own. The provincial cabinet approved a draft bill in 2018 that would also have protected men and transgender persons, but no enacted Sindh Act appears in the official Sindh Code, and the Sindh High Court continues to decide these cases under the 2010 Act.

Parliament amended the Act through the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Amendment) Act, 2022 (Act V of 2022), which received assent on 21 January 2022. The main changes:

• Complainant now means "any person", including a former employee who resigned or was removed, and the parent or guardian of a minor.
• Employee now reaches interns, students, freelancers, gig and home-based workers and others without a formal contract.
• Harassment gained a second limb covering gender-based discrimination, sexual or not, and the first limb now names stalking and cyber-stalking.
• Workplace extends beyond the office to any place where professionals render services and to work-linked activity elsewhere.
• The Ombudsperson must decide within 90 days, and a representation against that decision must also be decided within 90 days.

An unsettled point. Since the Eighteenth Amendment, workplace protection outside federal institutions has largely been a provincial subject, and whether Parliament's 2022 amendment binds provincial forums has not, so far as we can find, been squarely decided by the Sindh High Court. In practice the question matters less than it might. The Sindh High Court has referred to the amended definition when deciding a Karachi case, and the Supreme Court's 2023 review judgment in Nadia Naz v. President of Pakistan held that gender-based discrimination was harassment even under the original 2010 wording. Where it can still matter is a complaint by a man or a transgender person relying on the gender-neutral "any person" definition. Such a complaint should be drafted on the assumption that jurisdiction will be challenged.

What counts as harassment

Under section 2(h), as amended, harassment has two limbs. The first is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, such as advances, requests for sexual favours, stalking or cyber-stalking, and other verbal, written or physical conduct of a sexual or demeaning kind, that interferes with work, creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment, or is used to punish a refusal. The second is discrimination on the basis of gender, whether or not sexual in nature, that results in discriminatory treatment of the complainant.

The Code of Conduct in the Schedule describes three patterns: abuse of authority (making a job benefit depend on compliance), a hostile environment, and retaliation for refusing. Retaliation can take the form of blocked promotions or training, distorted evaluations or gossip, and the amended Code expressly treats a counter-blast defamation suit as retaliation.

The courts have read these provisions purposively:

• In Muhammad Rizwan Dalia v. Ombudsman Sindh (C.P. No. D-6107 of 2020, PLD 2022 Sindh 213), the Sindh High Court held that a woman who has left employment may still complain about harassment suffered while employed, and that a demand made a condition of employment can fall within the Act even before employment begins.
• In the 2023 Nadia Naz review, the Supreme Court held that the complainant's perspective is relevant and applied a "reasonable woman" standard, assessed both objectively and subjectively.
• Relying on Uzma Naveed Chaudhry v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2022 SC 783), the Sindh High Court has recognised that conduct rooted in gender-based discrimination which creates an abusive and hostile working environment falls within the Act.

Ordinary workplace friction, such as a rude manager or a disputed appraisal with no sexual or gender element, falls outside the Act. Test the facts against both limbs of section 2(h) before filing. Online conduct by a colleague may also be an offence under PECA; see our guide to cyber harassment complaints.

What every employer in Sindh must have in place

Section 11 makes the employer responsible for implementing the Act, including adopting the Code of Conduct as part of its management policy, constituting an Inquiry Committee and designating a Competent Authority. The duty applies to public bodies, private companies, educational and medical institutions and registered civil society organisations alike, and the Act sets no minimum headcount. A practical checklist:

1. Code of Conduct displayed in English and in the language understood by the majority of staff, in conspicuous places (section 11(2)).
2. A three-member Inquiry Committee, at least one of them a woman: one member from senior management and one senior representative of employees, or a senior employee where there is no collective bargaining agent. Outsiders may be co-opted if the organisation cannot staff the committee internally, and a member who is the subject of a complaint must be replaced for that case (section 3).
3. A designated Competent Authority to impose the penalty the committee recommends (section 3(4)).
4. Interim measures ready to use. The Code contemplates separating the parties during an inquiry: changing office arrangements, removing a reporting line that gives one party power over the other, or placing the accused on leave or suspension under the organisation's misconduct rules.
5. Support for the complainant. Where the complainant has been traumatised, the organisation must arrange psycho-social counselling or medical treatment and additional medical leave (section 4).

If an employer fails to comply, any employee may petition the District Court, which can fine the employer under section 11(3). The larger exposure is usually indirect: an organisation without a working committee pushes complainants straight to the Ombudsperson, where the employer has less control over the timetable and the record. Treat the committee as a standing body with trained members, not something assembled after a complaint arrives, and align it with the appointment terms and disciplinary rules discussed in our guide to the Sindh Standing Orders Act, 2015.

Two routes: Inquiry Committee or Ombudsperson

Section 8(1) lets the complainant choose between the employer's Inquiry Committee and the Ombudsperson. The statutory timetables differ:

Stage	Inquiry Committee route	Ombudsperson route
Notice to the accused	Written charges within 3 days of the complaint (s.4)	Show-cause notice within 3 days (s.8)
Accused's reply	Written defence within 7 days, failing which the committee may proceed ex parte	Reply within 5 days
Decision	Findings to the Competent Authority within 30 days of starting the inquiry; penalty imposed within one week of receiving them	Decision within 90 days (s.8(6), as amended)
Challenge	Appeal to the Ombudsperson within 30 days, to be decided within 30 days (s.6)	Representation to the Governor (or the President, for the Federal Ombudsperson) within 30 days, to be decided within 90 days (s.9)

Which Ombudsperson? Where the workplace and the events are in Sindh, the Provincial Ombudsperson Sindh is the usual forum. In Dalia, the Sindh High Court rejected an argument that K-Electric was a trans-provincial organisation beyond the provincial Ombudsperson's reach, because the workplace, the incident and the complainant were all in Karachi. Complaints from federal institutions are commonly taken to the Federal Ombudsperson in Islamabad. In Hassan Ali Khan Laghari v. President of Pakistan (C.P. No. D-5571 of 2024, order of 29 April 2025), the Sindh High Court declined to hear a challenge to a Federal Ombudsperson decision because the cause of action arose outside Sindh, even though the petitioner later lived in Karachi.

Choosing. The internal route is quicker on paper and keeps the matter inside the organisation, but it depends on a committee whose members work for the employer. The Ombudsperson is independent and has the powers of a civil court, including contempt powers, under section 10, though a decision can take up to three months. A complainant whose harasser is a director or owner, or whose employer has no committee, will usually go directly to the Ombudsperson. The Act fixes no deadline for the first complaint and the Code says delay does not by itself defeat it, but delay weakens evidence and invites the argument that the complaint is an afterthought.

Penalties, and what the Ombudsperson cannot do

Section 4(4) lists the penalties, which the Ombudsperson can also impose under section 10(2):

• Minor penalties: censure; withholding of promotion or increment for a specified period; stoppage at an efficiency bar; and recovery of compensation for the complainant from the accused's pay or other sources.
• Major penalties: reduction to a lower post or time-scale; compulsory retirement; removal or dismissal from service; suspension or cancellation of a professional licence (added in 2022); and a fine, part of which may be paid to the complainant, or all of it where the accused is the owner.

Two limits are often misunderstood. First, the Ombudsperson is not an employment court. In Dalia the Sindh High Court held that the Ombudsperson has no jurisdiction to reinstate a complainant or to inquire into the employer's separate disciplinary proceedings, so a complainant dismissed after complaining needs a separate remedy for the dismissal. Second, a complaint that fails is not automatically false. Only where the committee finds the allegations false and made with mala fide intent may it recommend, under section 5(3), that the Ombudsperson take action against the complainant.

Evidence and confidentiality

Under section 5(1), as amended, the Inquiry Committee can summon witnesses, examine them on oath, require documents and accept documentary, audio and video evidence. Each side may cross-examine the other's witnesses and may be accompanied by a colleague, friend or CBA representative. Statements and evidence are confidential, and the committee may direct that the proceedings as a whole be kept confidential (section 5(4)). The Act contains no free-standing rule that a complainant's identity can never be disclosed, so in practice confidentiality depends on how carefully the committee and the employer manage the file. No adverse action may be taken against the complainant or witnesses while the inquiry runs.

Specific, dated evidence decides these cases. In Project Implementation Managers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Sindh (C.P. No. D-805 of 2021), the Sindh High Court upheld the finding on one documented incident but set aside findings on other allegations that were undated, unsupported by documents and absent from the complainant's earlier emails. For complainants, that means:

• Note each incident soon after it happens: date, place, words used and who was present.
• Keep messages, emails and call logs in their original form; screenshots on their own invite authenticity disputes.
• Tell someone at the time, even informally. A contemporaneous account to a colleague or supervisor is useful corroboration.
• Take advice before relying on covert recordings, since both admissibility and the way they were obtained can be challenged.

For employers, the weak points the losing side will look for on appeal are a conflicted committee member who was not replaced, findings without reasons, and a penalty imposed without the Competent Authority's order.

The criminal route: section 509 PPC

Workplace harassment can also be a crime. Section 509 of the Pakistan Penal Code, as substituted by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2009, covers words, sounds, gestures or objects intended to insult a woman's modesty, and separately covers sexual advances, demands for sexual favours and sexual communications or conduct intended to annoy, insult, intimidate or threaten. Its explanation reaches workplace conduct that makes submission a condition of employment, retaliates against a refusal or creates a hostile environment. The offence is punishable with imprisonment of up to three years, or fine, or both.

Section 12 of the 2010 Act makes it additional to other laws, so an Ombudsperson complaint and a criminal case can proceed side by side. They serve different ends: the Ombudsperson route aims at workplace consequences and compensation, while a prosecution aims at punishment and must meet the criminal standard of proof. Anyone running both should keep the accounts consistent, because differences between an FIR and an Ombudsperson complaint will be used in cross-examination.

After the decision: the Governor, then the High Court

A party aggrieved by the Provincial Ombudsperson's decision may make a representation to the Governor of Sindh within 30 days (section 9). The Sindh High Court applies that limit strictly: in Project Implementation Managers, heard with Tehreem Muneeba v. Governor of Sindh (C.P. No. D-1687 of 2021), it refused to condone a late representation where the explanation offered had not been raised at the time.

After the Governor decides, the remaining route is a constitutional petition under Article 199. That is not an appeal. In Mst. Shereen v. The State through Governor of Sindh (C.P. No. D-3707 of 2021, order of 20 January 2023), the Sindh High Court declined to re-weigh the evidence and said it would interfere only for apparent illegality, a jurisdictional defect or perversity. In practice, the record built before the committee or the Ombudsperson is the whole case. Where a dispute raises a wider constitutional question, see our Supreme Court and constitutional practice.

Common questions

This article is general information about Pakistani law and procedure, not legal advice for any specific matter. If this touches on something you're currently facing, get in touch and we'll advise on your facts directly.