_akhbar.jpg)
The Sindh High Court issued notices to former K-Electric chief executive officer and others on a petition challenging a decision made by now a former Sindh governor on the former KE CEO representation, which set aside the provincial ombudsperson for protection against harassment of women’s order in a workplace harassment case.
The governor had earlier set aside the order of the Provincial Ombudsperson for the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace that had found then KE CEO Moonis Alvi guilty of harassment and creating a hostile environment for a woman, and ordered his immediate removal from service.
The order came on Alvi’s representation against the ombudsperson’s order under Section 9 of the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010. Petitioner Mahreen Aziz Khan submitted that the governor erred in his order by setting aside the provincial ombudsperson findings and observing that no written complaint on alleged harassment was filed with the KE’s relevant committee or any other authority.
She said she had complied with the KE’s own reporting mechanism and rightly submitted a written complaint to the competent authority. She submitted that the governor erred in the law by passing the impugned order and failed to consider, appreciate the element of retaliation perpetrated against the petitioner, which itself constituted harassment.
She also pointed out conflict of interest in the governor’s judgment submitting that the former KE CEO’s counsel was the same person who also represented the governor in the Supreme Court. She requested the high court to set aside the governor’s order as it was passed in violation of fair trial and natural justice.
An SHC’s division bench headed by Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed observed that no one appeared on behalf of the respondents. The court repeated notices to the former KE CEO and others and called their comments on May 18.
Alvi had argued in his representation that the complaint was not maintainable before the ombudsperson because it was filed by a former employee of the KE, who had been terminated on account of poor work performance, to retaliate against her termination, and no harassment had been involved.
The governor had observed in his order that it had been established through conversations that the respondent was having work-related issues at the KE. He said this had been corroborated by her WhatsApp conversation with Alvi, in which she asked him to assign her and her team work, and the email dated July 31, 2020, presented by the respondent, in which he had expressed dissatisfaction with her work performance.
