NAME: PARAS SHAHAB

ROLL NO: 31
SUBJECT: OTHER LAWS
RESOURCE PERSON: SIR ZAFAR SAHI
DATE: 4TH- JULY-2021
ASSIGNMENT: MEERA SHAFI CASE
THE CASE CAPTION- Meera Shafi Vs office of the Governor Punjab &
Others.
THE AUTHOR OF THE CASE- Justice Shahid Karim
THE LAW OF THE CASE- the Punjab Protection against harassment of women
at workplace act 2012.
THE DISPOSITION OF THE CASE- DISMISSED
FACTS OF THE CASE-
I. The petitioner Meera Shafi filed a petition initially at ombudsman and then
at Governor Office Punjab. However, both the times her arguments
backfired and case was set aside due to limited jurisdiction. Nevertheless,
the plaintiff this time filed petition at Lahore High Court against Office of
Governor Punjab and others on 02-10-2019 on the disposal of her allegations
against the defendant for harassing her at workplace.
II. The setting aside of case for three times at three different forums owes its
origin to the inherent flaw in the filling of the case that is absence of
employees and employer relationship explicitly mentioned in the clause 6.11
(It shall not be deemed to create any partnership or employment
relationship) of the agreement between the petitioner and J.S Events and
Productions.
III. Similar representation was filed before Governor Punjab which too was set
aside. Highlighting the gaps in the case the office of the Governor made
mention of absence of any relationship between respondent and petitioner at
J.S Events and Productions let alone at any other forum.
IV. Lahore High Court in the light of above verdicts took up the request for
judicial review by petitioner. However, it didn’t take different take on the
case. It dismissed the case on the similar grounds that is the agreement lacks
any employment relationship between the complainant and J.S Events and
Productions. Moreover, since respondent doesn’t fall in the similar relation
with the plaintiff and her organization. Hence, this law is not applicable in
this situation. Furthermore, the court highlighted the fluctuation in the stance
of plaintiff on her stature as a self-employed, independent artist to employee
of J.S Events. Likewise, the court through various judgments and case laws
confronted the arguments presented from the side of plaintiff.
 V. Furthermore, the high court dismissed the request of complainant to expand
the definition of the employees under act to which court responded that law
making is not the domain of judiciary but law interpretation.
VI. Finally, the case was dismissed.
ANALYSIS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE JUDGEMENT
I. Section 2 clause (f) of the Punjab protection against harassment of women at
workplace defines employee as a regular or contractual employee whether
employed on daily, weekly, monthly or hourly basis and includes an intern
or an apprentice. Though the agreement between the complainant and JS
events explicitly denied of any such relation yet the argument from the
Lahore high court that Meera Shafi was not a regular employees could be
confronted since agreement establishes a contractual relation for ten days
whereas clause (f) suggests any such relation even on hourly basis which
means that could be an hour only.
II. Section 2 clause (g) defines employer as any person or body of persons
which employs workers under a contract. In this sense JS events can be
termed as an employer as it availed itself of the services of the plaintiff
under a contract.
III. A contract under contract act 1872 can be defined as any agreement
enforceable by law and since the agreement created a legal liability between
JS Events and the complainant thus there was a relationship.
IV. However, this act comes to its limitation under section 2 clause e that
defines the accused as an employee or employer of the organization against
whom the complaint has been made.
V. Likewise, there is no working relationship between the complainant and the
responded at the moment of time or with her organization for that matter.
VI. Thus, the verdict of the high court stands tall due to the inherent legal
lacunas in the act and non-existing working relationship between the
respondent and the complainant’s organization. Nevertheless, the two
provisions (def of employee and employer) could be interpreted in the favor
of the complainant.