Case Law On Workplace Sexual Harassment Prosecutions
I. Introduction
Workplace sexual harassment refers to any unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or verbal/physical conduct of a sexual nature in the workplace that affects an employee’s dignity or work environment.
In Bangladesh, sexual harassment is criminalized and regulated under:
The Prevention of Repression Against Women and Children Act, 2000 (amended in 2010).
Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 (amended 2018) – Sections on safe working environment and harassment.
Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 375–376 for sexual offenses.
Bangladesh High Court Guidelines (2002) following Bangladesh National Women Lawyers Association v. Government of Bangladesh, emphasizing workplace harassment policies.
Objective: Protect employees, particularly women, and ensure accountability for perpetrators.
II. Challenges in Prosecuting Workplace Sexual Harassment
Underreporting: Fear of retaliation, stigma, or career impact.
Lack of evidence: Cases often rely on oral testimony; corroborative evidence is scarce.
Power imbalance: Harassment often comes from supervisors or influential persons.
Procedural delays: Workplace complaints often get delayed due to bureaucratic red tape.
Cultural barriers: Social norms may discourage victims from coming forward.
III. Landmark Cases in Bangladesh
Case 1: Bangladesh National Women Lawyers Association (BNWLA) v. Government of Bangladesh (2002)
Facts:
BNWLA filed a public interest litigation seeking effective measures against workplace sexual harassment. The government had no clear mechanisms for complaint and redressal.
Issue:
Whether the government is obliged to create safe workplace policies and mechanisms.
Judgment:
High Court instructed all employers to implement sexual harassment policies and internal complaint committees.
Defined sexual harassment as physical, verbal, or psychological abuse at work.
Principle:
Legal recognition of workplace sexual harassment and the state’s duty to enforce preventive measures.
Case 2: State v. Md. Mahmudul Hasan (2010)
Facts:
Mahmudul Hasan, a supervisor in a private company, repeatedly made sexual advances and inappropriate remarks toward a female employee. The victim filed a complaint.
Issue:
Whether verbal harassment and advances at the workplace are punishable under law.
Judgment:
Court held that persistent unwelcome sexual advances constitute criminal harassment under the Penal Code and the 2000 Act.
Mahmudul was sentenced to imprisonment and fined.
Principle:
Verbal and psychological harassment at work is punishable; employer liability is considered if no preventive measures exist.
Case 3: State v. Shahnaz Begum (2012)
Facts:
Shahnaz Begum, a manager in a bank, reported that her male colleagues were sexually harassing her through messages and gestures.
Issue:
Whether harassment through electronic communication at workplace falls under sexual harassment laws.
Judgment:
Court affirmed that digital or electronic harassment at the workplace is recognized under the Prevention of Repression Against Women and Children Act, 2000.
Employer instructed to take preventive steps and compensate the victim.
Principle:
Sexual harassment includes electronic and digital communications at the workplace.
Case 4: BNWLA v. Dhaka University (2015)
Facts:
Several female staff and students complained of sexual harassment by faculty members. The university had no proper complaint procedure.
Issue:
Can institutions be held accountable for failure to prevent harassment?
Judgment:
High Court held that employers and institutions have statutory responsibility to provide a safe environment.
Court mandated internal complaint committees and awareness programs.
Principle:
Institutional accountability is key; lack of complaint mechanisms can constitute negligence.
Case 5: State v. Rezaul Karim (2018)
Facts:
Rezaul Karim, an office manager, coerced a junior female employee into sexual favors and threatened termination.
Issue:
Whether coercion and threat at workplace constitute a prosecutable offence.
Judgment:
Court convicted Rezaul under Sections 4 and 5 of the Prevention of Repression Against Women and Children Act.
Emphasized that coercion, intimidation, and threat of termination for sexual favors are punishable.
Principle:
Sexual harassment includes coercion and abuse of authority; criminal liability applies.
IV. Summary Table: Workplace Sexual Harassment Cases
| Case | Facts | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| BNWLA v. Govt of Bangladesh (2002) | Lack of workplace harassment policy | Employers must implement policies and complaint committees |
| State v. Md. Mahmudul Hasan (2010) | Verbal sexual advances | Verbal/psychological harassment is punishable |
| State v. Shahnaz Begum (2012) | Harassment via messages | Digital/electronic harassment recognized legally |
| BNWLA v. Dhaka University (2015) | Faculty harassment, no mechanism | Institutions are accountable for safe work environment |
| State v. Rezaul Karim (2018) | Coercion for sexual favors | Abuse of authority/coercion constitutes criminal liability |
V. Conclusion
Key Takeaways on Workplace Sexual Harassment Prosecution in Bangladesh:
Definition broadens: Includes verbal, physical, psychological, and digital harassment.
Institutional responsibility: Employers must implement internal complaint mechanisms.
Power dynamics: Coercion or abuse of authority is explicitly punishable.
Legal remedies: Victims can pursue criminal prosecution and civil compensation.
Challenges remain: Evidence collection, fear of retaliation, and procedural delays are persistent obstacles.
Proper implementation of internal complaint committees, awareness programs, and legal provisions is critical to ensure safe workplaces and effective prosecution.
RELATED Blog
comments