Lahore
The Lahore High Court on Friday disposed of a petition filed by singer Meesha Shafi pertaining to a harassment case lodged against Ali Zafar.
In August 2018, Meesha Shafi had filed a petition challenging the Punjab ombudsperson (Protection against Harassment of Women at Workplace) and governor's decision to dismiss her complaint of sexual harassment against Zafar.
Last week, the court had reserved the verdict in the case.
The singer had appealed against the decision before the Punjab governor, who upheld the decision.
Subsequently, Shafi had challenged the governor’s decision in the Lahore High Court.
The petition had requested the court to invalidate the governor’s decision to dismiss Shafi’s complaint.
Meanwhile, Ali Zafar’s counsel had argued that the case did not fall under laws pertaining to harassment at the workplace.
The Lahore High Court on Friday disposed of a petition filed by singer Meesha Shafi pertaining to a harassment case lodged against Ali Zafar.
In August 2018, Meesha Shafi had filed a petition challenging the Punjab ombudsperson (Protection against Harassment of Women at Workplace) and governor's decision to dismiss her complaint of sexual harassment against Zafar.
Last week, the court had reserved the verdict in the case.
Meesha had filed a complaint with the provincial ombudsperson against Ali Zafar, but the ombudsperson had rejected it as Meesha ‘did not have an employer-employee relationship’ with Ali Zafar. Hence, her case could not be heard on that forum.
The singer had appealed against the decision before the Punjab governor, who upheld the decision.
Subsequently, Shafi had challenged the governor’s decision in the Lahore High Court.
Shafi’s representatives in court, Barrister Ahmed Pansota and Saqib Jilani, had argued that having an employer-employee relationship was not a prerequisite for a case to be considered as one of sexual harassment.
The petition had requested the court to invalidate the governor’s decision to dismiss Shafi’s complaint.
Meanwhile, Ali Zafar’s counsel had argued that the case did not fall under laws pertaining to harassment at the workplace.