ROTECTION AGAINST HARASSMENT OF WOMEN AT WORKPLACE ISLAMABAD versus
Sections 2 (h) and (l) define the evidence of sexual harassment with a university student. The accused, who was a lecturer at the university, allegedly demanded sexual favors from the victim / student, and in return promised to pass the exam. The alleged victim made a phone call and insisted that she meet him at his office. The university's inquiry committee found the accused guilty of sexually harassing the victim and recommended his dismissal, which the university board accepted was a protection against it. The Harassment of Women Act 2010 did not apply to educational institutions. Under the aforementioned act, only an employee of an institution can file a complaint against his employer for harassing him at his place of employment, the affected woman complained against him for pressuring her to give him more numbers. And that it has not been given a complaint in the Workplace Act, Section 2 (l) of the Protection Against Harassment of Women in the meaning of Section 2 (l), being an educational institution of Waldetti University. The opportunity to inspect could not be missed by the Victim treatment at the university. If he was sexually harassed by the aforementioned act, Victim did not complain of pressuring the accused, since he complained on the advice of his fellow students, he was given the opportunity to be the victim and Examine his witnesses but he refuses. Examine any of these in the current case, Workspace Act, 2010a
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2013
