Khalil Jamil asked one of the women about her favourite sexual position and quizzed another about the mating habits of her horses.
The General Pharmaceutical Council panel found Mr Jamil acted inappropriately by making the comments and standing too close to his assistants – but ruled his behaviour was not sexually motivated.
They accepted he was not used to working in such an open environment with women as he came from a strict Muslim community, and had remedied his actions by attending a "dignity at work" course.
As the remarks were not sexually motivated the panel cleared Mr Jamil of misconduct and gave him an official warning.
Panel chairman Patrick Malmo, QC, said: "He felt the source of this behaviour in 2009 was that he comes from a very restrictive background, with little social life, and none at all outside of his own community.
"He lacked social skills, and had little knowledge of how one should be when working with colleagues. He was unable to distinguish between friendliness and over-familiarity."
Mr Malmo added: 'We do not think there is a serious risk of this kind of conduct being repeated. Although we do not find the registrant impaired, we have the ability to issue a warning, and given the circumstances of this case, we believe it is necessary to do so."
In a statement read to the hearing, one of Mr Jamil's colleagues, referred to as CH, said she was working with him at the Co-operative Pharmacy in Fauldhouse, West Lothian, on July 18, 2009, when he asked: "Do you have a boyfriend? Do you want a boyfriend?' She said: "Whenever it went quiet he came back to me and stood close again. He asked me if I was into sports, I said 'No'.
"He said he was into boxing and said feel my stomach. He grabbed my wrist and tried to get me to touch his stomach."
Jamil had told the hearing he had no desire to be in a relationship with the woman, saying: "I suppose I was showing off, at the time, that I train, I work hard," he replied.
He made similar remarks to another assistant, referred to only as SS, while he was working as a locum at a Morrisons pharmacy in St Andrews, Fife, in November 2009. The pharmacist approached her while she was at a computer and asked her if she had a boyfriend and how she liked to have sex with him.
A similar incident occurred the following week, in which he put his arms around her waist.
A third woman, known as SR, was working at the same pharmacy when Mr Jamil stood so close to her that as she bent down to pick up some prescriptions, she could not help but back into him.
She added that he had asked if getting her horses castrated had affected the animals' sex drives, and whether it would have the same effect on a man.
He had admitted that all the incidents took place but denied any possible sexual motivation.
Speaking afterwards, Graham Edwards said on behalf of Mr Jamil: 'I think the panel's decision was overall correct.
"Although Mr Jamil had not acted with sexual motivation, and although he had crossed professional boundaries, it is clear that through his insight and his remedial actions and courses followed, the correct decision has been made to assess that he is not impaired.
"It is correct that the panel warned him about his future behaviour.
"The duration of the inquiry into these matters, being three years, has caused Mr Jamil and his family to be emotionally damaged, at a great deal of financial cost."
Contextual targeting label: