Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2023 LHC 5943

Hassan Munir vs Province of the Punjab, etc

Citation2023 LHC 5943
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.W. P. No.70260 of 2023
Date2023-11-16
Judge(s)Raheel Kamran
ResultPetition Disposed of

Judgment: Raheel Kamran J:- The petitioner has called into question the show cause notice dated 31.08.2023 issued by the Vice Chancellor, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad under Section 13(4) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 ("PEEDA Act, 2006') whereby he has been afforded opportunity of personal hearing.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegation of harassment squarely falls within the scope and ambit of the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 ('the Act of 2010') which is a Federal legislation and has overriding effect on the provisions of the PEEDA, Act. 2006. He further contends that since the allegation is of harassment, proceedings against the petitioner ought to have been conducted under the Act of 2010. It is finally contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in any event the Act of 2010 ought to have been followed being a Federal law in view of the mandate of Article 143 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ('Constitution').

3. Conversely, learned Law Officer and learned counsel for respondents No.3, 7 & 9 have opposed the petition while contending that the provisions of the PEEDA Act, 2006 have been lawfully invoked and that Article 143 of the Constitution does not stand in the way of the impugned action being not inconsistent with the Act of 2010.

4. Arguments heard. Record perused.

5. Harassm ent at workplace has been one of the major contributing factors that hampers women from joining the workforce in Pakistan. The Act of 2010 provides legal protection to women against harassm ent at the workplace, and reforms the existing legislation regarding women's right to work in Pakistan whereas the PEEDA Act, 2006 provides for proceedings against the employees in Government and corporation service in relation to their conduct, efficiency, discipline and accountability. The petitioner has allegedly been proceeded under the PEEDA Act for misconduct on account of harassm ent of a female student. Section 12 of the Act of 2010 states that the provisions of the said Act are in addition to any other law in force. The said section is reproduced for ready reference:- "12. Provisions of the Act in addition to and not in derogation of any other law.- The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force."

It is clearly manifest from the perusal of above provision that proceedings under the Act, 2010 do not exclude possibility of proceedings in any other law, therefore, there is no illegality or jurisdictional error in proceedings against the petitioner, if allegation falls within the scope and ambit of the PEEDA Act, 2006.

6. However, undisputedly the Act of 2010 is a Federal legislation whereas the PEEDA Act, 2006 has been enacted by the Provincial Assembly. Article 143 of the Constitution provides that in case of any inconsistency between the Federal and Provincial Law, the former will prevail. The said Article reads as under: - "143. Inconsistency between Federal and Provincial Law.- If any provision of an Act of Provincial Assembly is repugnant to any provision of an Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) which Majlis-e- Shoora (Parliament) is competent to enact, then the Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), whether passed before or after the Act of the Provincial Assembly, shall prevail and the Act of the Provincial Assembly shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void."

Hence, it is quite clear that in case of any inconsistency between the Act of 2010 and the PEEDA Act, 2006, the provisions of the Act of 2010 shall prevail in its application to the proceedings for the alleged harassm ent against respondent No.8.

7. In view of the foregoing reasons, the titled writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondents may proceed against the petitioner under the PEEDA Act, 2006, however, in case of any inconsistency the provisions of the Act of 2010 will prevail over the PEEDA Act, 2006 and the same shall be adhered to.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch