' In this writ petition, filed in this Court, on 11-12-2000, the petitioner states that he was appointed as a Shift Engineer vide order dated 22-10-1965 (Annex: 'C') in WAPDA. He was conscripted and commissioned in Pakistan Army on 13-12-1965 under the provisions of the Compulsory Service (Armed Forces) Ordinance, 1965. In terms of the provisions of the said Ordinance, he was assured by WAPDA vide letter dated 21-7-1969 (Anex: 'D') that officers placed like the petitioner will be taken back in service provided they report within three months of their release from Army. The petitioner was retired and released from Army w.e.f. 14-12-1995.
2. Now it appears that in his anxiety not to miss the Bus, expecting retirement, he approached WAPDA somewhere in the year 1995. WAPDA responded vide letter dated 24-4-1995 (Annex: G') stating that Ex-Defence Forces Officers are re-employed against 10% quota which stands exhausted and as such the petitioner's re-employment in WAPDA is not possible. Thereafter, he started corresponding unilaterally for the said re-employment while still in Army service. On 23-8- 1995 (Annex: 'J') formal orders were issued by the GHQ (MS Branch) declaring that he will be struck off duties w.e.f. 14-12-1995 and granted leave pending retirement under the existing Rules. On receipt of the said letter, he again wrote to the Chairman, WAPDA, on 13-9-1995 (Annex: 'K') informing of the receipt of the said formal orders and requesting for reemployment. He repeatedly wrote letters on the said line to WAPDA, receiving no response. After the said refual he filed an application before The learned Federal Ombudsman on 10-1-1996.WAPDA objected to the jurisdcition of the learned Ombudsma n and the plea taken was that he was called up by the Army while he was probationer with WAPDA and further that the said Ordinance of 1965 stands lapsed upon lifting of emergency. The learned Ombudsman as per findings recorded on 14-11-1996 rejected the case. A review application was also dismissed on 26-11-1996 while the President dismissed the representation on 15-11-2000.
2. Now as against the said plea taken in April, 1995 and then before the learned Ombudsman the plea taken by WAPDA in this Court is that since the petitioner did not apply within three months of his release from the Army, he is not entitled to the benefit of the said provision of the said Ordinance of 1965. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is a matter of record that the petitioner did approach WAPDA and notwithstanding the fact that his re-employment under the said Ordinance of 1965 is assured, he was not employed. Further contends that the word "within" used in the said law is to be construed as both before and after the release. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that admittedly no application was filed by the petitioner for re-employment within three months of his release from Army and according to the learned counsel the said provision is to be read as three months after the release. Further contention is that under the said law, WAPDA is entitled to get a finding from the Manpower Tribunal exempting it from the said provision and this can be done by means of an application to be filed within seven days of the application filed by the employee for reemployment.
3. I have examined the pleadings of the parties and several documents placed on the record by the petitioner in the light of the said contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The facts as stated by me above, are almost admitted. Section 9(1) of the said Compulsory Service (Armed Forces) Ordinance, 1965 is as follows:-- "9. Re-instatement of persons released under the orders of the Board.--(1) Subject to the other provisions of this section, every employer by whom a person was released for service under this Ordinance, in pursuance of a notice served under section 6, shall, on the termination of such service, reinstate such person in the employment from which he was released, and if such reinstatement is less favourable to such person than that to which he would, in the ordinary course, have been entitled, give him such employment as is not so less favourable: ' Provided that the employer shall not be required to so reinstate or employ any person if such person does not apply or report to him for the purpose within three months of his release from service under this Ordinance."
' Now it will be seen that where any person released for the said compulsory services makes an application or a report to the employer for reinstatement within three months of his release from the said service under the Ordinance, the employer shall reinstate him in service favourable to him in the ordinary course according to his entitlement.
5. Now going by the strict letter of the said law, the interpretation being placed by the learned counsel for the respondents appears to be more reasonable i.e. a person has to apply within three months of his release from service and not within three months before his release from service. At the same time, it is but apparent on the face of the record that the petitioner did make a claim and the respondent was conscious of the same while refusing the same in a rather unceremonious manner.
6. Now subsection (2) of the said section 9 gives a right to the employer to file an application with the Manpower Tribunal who is authorized to make any of the orders mentioned in clauses (a) or
(b) of subsection (3) of the said section 9 of the Ordinance of 1965. I may further note here that the learned counsel has raised the question of jurisdiction in terms of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. To my mind the objection has no force as the matter pertains to enforcement of the provision of said law in terms of the same and not as a term and condition of the service of the petitioner with the respondents.
7. For all that has been discussed above, this writ petition is disposed of in presence of the learned counsel for the parties, with the observation that within seven days from today, the respondent- WAPDA, if so advised, shall make an application before the Manpower Tribunal as defined in section 2(f) of the Compulsory Service (Armed Forces) Ordinance, 1965 and to further act on the orders of the said Tribunal to be passed in terms of section 9(3)(a) or (b) of the said Ordinance. In case the said application is not filed within said seven days commencing today, the petitioner shall stand reinstated in service of the respondents in terms of section 9(1) of the said Ordinance, 1965 w.e.f. The date of institution of this writ petition noted above. No orders as to costs..