Chief secretary directed to formulate policy for domestic workers
-
2025-02-19 07:22:06
LAHORE: Lahore High Court (LHC) Chief Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah on Tuesday disposed of a petition with the directives to the Punjab’s chief secretary and labour secretary to formulate a policy with respect to domestic workers.
Petitioner counsel Sheraz Zaka submitted there was no policy/regulation for children working as domestic workers. He said that the Punjab Restriction on Employment of Children Act 2016 solely applied to children working in industrial establishments.
He said that child labour menace had increased manifold over the past few years in domestic household work due to the non-existence of policy or regulation for the domestic workers
He pointed out that the child labour in domestic household work was damaging the reputation of the country amongst the comity of nations. He also mentioned that the Supreme Court of Pakistan had taken a suo motu notice over maltreatment meted out to a minor housemaid in Islamabad.
He said that the government should be directed to formulate a policy. In rebuttal, an assistant advocate general argued that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner was not a domestic worker. After hearing the counsels, the chief justice issued directions to formulate a policy with respect to domestic workers.
Separately, a full bench of Lahore High Court summoned three lawyers, Barrister Eihtesham Ameeruddin, Mehar Ahsan and Inam, who allegedly misbehaved with an additional district and session judge of Lahore.
The bench, comprising Justice Kazim Raza Shamsi, Justice Shahzad Ahmad Khan and Justice Atir Mahmood, directed three lawyers to appear on January 31.
Earlier, the lawyers had appeared before the additional and session judge to plead a petition. During arguments, Barrister Ameeruddin got infuriated and started shouting at the judge.
As the judge returned to his retiring room, the lawyers followed him and allegedly manhandled him and ransacked his office.
Islampura police had lodged a case against these lawyers under terrorism and other criminal charges for allegedly misbehaving with an additional district and sessions judge in an open court, and ransacking his chamber for not getting a “favourable” decision in the case.
