ISLAMABAD: Artist Meesha Shafi, who is embroiled in a dispute with singer Ali Zafar, has approached the Supreme Court with a plea that the provincial ombudsperson for protection of harassment against women at the workplace should rehear her grievance.

In an appeal filed before the apex court on Wednesday, the artist, whose real name is Meera Shafi, requested the Supreme Court to set aside the Lahore High Court’s Oct 11 order which upheld the conclusion reached by the provincial ombudsperson last year that since the petitioner was not an “employee”, she was not covered under the 2010 law regarding harassment of women at a place of work.

Meesha Shafi and Ali Zafar have been locked in the dispute since the latter instituted a defamation suit against the former after she accused him of sexual harassment.

In turn, Zafar requested a trial court to order Ms Shafi to pay him restitution for making “false allegations” and damaging his reputation.

Moved through Khawaja Ahmad Hosain, Meesha Shafi in her appeal requested the Supreme Court to order that her case be remanded back to the provincial ombudsperson with a directive that the complaint against Ali Zafar be heard and decided under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act of 2010.

The singer had filed the complaint relating to an alleged incident when she and the singer were rehearsing for an event.

Meesha Shafi challenged the om­buds­person’s order in the Lahore High Court, but it rejected her plea through an order issued on Oct 11 this year.

The petition filed before the Supreme Court argued that the ombudsperson’s order was based solely on a provision in the contract between the petitioner (Meesha Shafi) and an entity which had employed her in December 2017.

According to the contract, the petitioner was required to rehearse at Ali Zafar’s studio and to perform two songs in collaboration with him.

The appeal contended that the studio where she had to rehearse clearly fell within the definition of a workplace under the 2010 law.

According to Section 2(n) of the Act, a workplace means ‘‘a place of work’’ or the ‘‘premises where an organisation or an employer operates’’ and it includes any building, a factory, an open area or a larger geographical area where the activities of the organisation or of the employer are carried out. It includes any situation that is linked to an official activity outside the office.

The petitioner recalled that she had also lodged an appeal against the ombudsperson’s order with the Punjab governor under Section 9 of the Act, but it was dismissed.

The appeal contended that the petitioner’s contract had established that she was a contractual employee and that the plan spelt out the manner and place at which she was to perform.

These requirements included that she would be available to the employer for rehearsals and that she would rehearse at the singer’s studio. She was required to sing two songs in collaboration with Ali Zafar.

The event had to take place at a spot designated by the employer in the contract.

Likewise, Zafar had entered into a contract with the employer in respect of the same event, the appeal added.

According to Meesha Shafi, she was harassed by the singer during rehearsals for the event at his studio pursuant to the contracts. Since she was required to rehearse at the studio under her contract, this constituted harassment at the workplace and she was justified in bringing a complaint under the Act, the appeal contended.

The petitioner requested the Supreme Court to ask the provincial ombudsperson to treat her appeal as a complaint of harassment at the workplace.

Published in Dawn, December 12th, 2019