Workplace order
TO achieve both success and credibility in the market, an organisation should operate with transparency and fairness towards all its stakeholders. The employees, especially the lower cadres, should be comfortable in their interactions with the management; while the latter owes them a cordial work environment where contractual commitments are respected. At the same time, a company has the right to expect employees’ commitment towards improving productivity. When an organisation prioritises employee relations, the result is a disciplined workforce.
The Esso Standard Eastern, renamed Exxon Corporation, and an affiliate of Standard Oil in New Jersey, had established a fertiliser plant at Daharki in 1965. Both firms featured in Fortune 500. Besides Google, Salesforce, Adobe, and Southwest Airlines, Exxon Corporation retained a strong standing because of its work culture and employee relationship management.
The Standard Oil head had implemented an employee representative plan after the infamous industrial unrest of the early 20th century. This revolutionised the company’s approach towards human resources as industrial harmony was established through direct and cordial communication with workers. A few years after its Sindh chapter was set up, the worst industrial strife took place despite decent salaries and benefits. However, a competent labour leader managed to pacify the irate workers. The management responded by putting in extra effort, and more work to ensure that the plant’s output did not suffer. Ultimately, the union leaders were punished for their actions, and the plant continued to operate peacefully. During my tenure at this company, I noticed that thanks to strong employee relations at the plant, the workforce also prioritised their employer’s wellbeing.
Maintaining cordial relations with employees helps employers handle discipline-related problems smoothly and effectively. The sensitivity of such matters means employers must exercise more care in conducting inquiries regarding complaints, particularly when they are about harassment. Although over 12 acts and omissions constitute misconduct, significant importance is given to the implementation of Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010.
Cordial ties with employees ensure workplace discipline.
Despite the aforementioned facts, working women aggrieved by acts of harassment are reluctant to lodge complaints due to family pressure and direct interaction with the accused during proceedings — a situation that should not continue. Consequently, many harassment cases are not reported. This emboldens potential harassers to continue with their heinous acts.
There is a dire need to review Section 4 (C) of the Act, which states: “The inquiry committee shall inquire into the charge and may examine such oral or documentary evidence in support of the charge or in defence of the accused as the committee may consider necessary and each party shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses against him”.
In most cases, victims of harassment do not want to be cross-examined by the lawyers of the accused. Instead of subjecting the aggrieved party to cross-examination, the inquiry committee should be empowered to make recommendations based on its evaluation of the oral and documented evidence submitted during the probe. Allowing such interrogation discourages tormented victims from coming forward.
Besides, the punishment for an employee found guilty of misconduct should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed. Based on this principle, a division bench of the Supreme Court had, through its judgement on Aug 28, 2007, reduced the penalty imposed by the Federal Service Tribunal on the appellant who was a civil servant. The court had converted the penalty of compulsory retirement from service, prescribed by the tribunal, to a period of two years whereby the appellant would lose out on two increments.
The civil servant was removed from service on the two charges of non-compliance with the orders of his superiors, and absence from duty without prior permission. In the first charge, the court did not accept the plea of the appellant that the order given by the director-general to depute him to a special audit assignment was not conveyed to him in writing. But in the second charge, the Supreme Court had stated that “the mere fact that the appellant did not obtain permission before proceeding on medical leave on the advice of his doctor may not be considered an act of gross misconduct entailing the major penalty of dismissal from service”.
The writer is a consultant in human resources at the Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi.
Published in Dawn, September 24th, 2026
