' This matter arises out of an Appeal No,9/FOS/2011.
' MS. MUSARRAT HILALI, MOHTASIB.---Briefly the facts are, that Ms. Shamim Bano, Accounts Officer Finance Department Pakistan International Airlines submitted a complaint against Amir Mehmood, Senior Accounts Officer Pakistan International Airlines, Jinnah International Airport Karachi before inquiry committee. It was alleged that Amir Mehmood P-48051, Senior Accounts Officer misbehaved with the respondent at her workplace in front of other employees by saying 'Jahil" and "Badtameez Aurat". Upon receipt of complaint, the competent authority constituted an inquiry committee comprising of Ms. Mahreen Fatima, Mrs. Mariam Aftab and Mr. Abid. The committee communicated the appellant the charges levelled against him by Ms. Sahmim Bano, the respondent No,2. The appellant submitted his reply on 8-3-2011 denying all the charges levelled, against him and opted to defend himself before the enquiry committee.
2. The appellant and the respondent No,2 appeared before the committee, statements of both the parties were recorded the enquiry committee also recorded the statements of 12 witnesses. The appellant, respondent No,2 and all the witnesses were put to the clarification of enquiry committee.
The committee gave its detailed report on 18-3-2011.
' On the recommendation of enquiry committee, the Managing Director PIA being the competent authority issued letter of censure to the appellant and permanently transferred him to Finance unit (Engineering).
3. Aggrieved of the recommendation of the inquiry committee dated 18-3-2011 and order of the competent authority dated 31-3-2011, the appellant filed the instant appeal under section 6 subsection (1) of the Protection against Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2010.
4. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the impugned order of competent authority is Without Jurisdiction as according to the learned counsel matter was beyond the purview and scope of the Act. That the alleged words "Jahil" and "Badtameez Aurat" were used which do not cover the word harassm ent as defined under section 2 subsection (h) of the Protection Against Harassm ent of Women at Workplace Act, 2010.
5. Learned counsel further -submitted that inquiry Committee and the competent authority acted in a biased and perverse manner, resulted into miscarriage of Justice, he prayed that the recommendation of inquiry committee dated 18-3-2011 and the order of competent authority dated 31-3-2011 be set aside.
' On the other hand, Mr. Agha Sayyad Ali Raza appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that the findings/recommendations of inquiry committee be treated as his arguments.
6. I have gone through the statements of appellant, the respondent No,2 and the witnesses and have perused the record. The foremost and pivotal question for adjudication is "whether the complaint filed before the harassm ent committee constituted a case under section 2 subsection
(h) of the Act which is reproduced as under:-- "harassment" means any unwelcome sexual advance, request for sexual favors or other verbal or written communication or physical conduct of a sexual nature or sexually demeaning attitudes, causing interference with work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work A environment, or the attempt to punish the complainant for refusal to comply to such a request or is made a condition for employment".
7. From the plain reading of the above mentioned section it is clear that a key part of the definition is the use of the word unwelcome or uninvited conduct or communication of a sexual nature is prohibited. The sex based behavior shall be severe or persuasive enough to alter the conditions of the victims employment and create an abusive working environment or renders the work place atmosphere intimidating, hostile or offensive. The respondent No,2 has alleged that appellant called her "Jahil and Badtameez Aurat". None of the words uttered by appellant qualifies the term sexual harassm ent. Although the comments were sufficiently offensive to cause discomfort for a women but they did not rise to the level of interfering with the respondent's work performance as it was an isolated incident, occurred on a very minor dispute. Had there been a man in her place, situation would have been equally bad for him. The respondent No,2 failed to make a prima facie case of sexual harassm ent.
8. In view of the foregoing this appeal is allowed.
' The Managing Director PIA is directed to send back the appellant to the position from where he was transferred pursuant to the order dated 31-3-2011.
' A copy of this order be sent to Managing Director NA, Karachi for its implementation.
' Case file be consigned to the record room after its necessary completion and compilation.