Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner seeks his reinstatement in service under the provisions of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 by way of this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed as Area Manger on 04,08.1996 in the respondent's Corporation; that subsequently the services of the petitioner were terminated on 11.06.1998; that the petitioner falls in the definition of "sacked employee" as provided in Section 2(f)(i)(iv) of the Act ibid as such he filed the application for his reinstatement within the prescribed period of time as envisaged in Section 3 of the Act ibid that Section 4 of the Act clearly states that all sacked employees shall be re-instated in service and their service shall be regularized with effect from the date of enactment of this Act once the application is filed; that the respondents are not implementing Section 4(g) of the Act ibid; that some of the colleagues of the petitioner filed different writ petitions seeking their reinstatement in service under the Act ibid which were allowed by this Court by way of judgment reported as Nazar Muhammad Warraich and 7 others vs. Zonal Head, State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, Sialkot and another (2017 PLC (C.S)685 ; that against the said judgment respondent's Intra Court Appeal as well as CPLA has also been dismissed; that' the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief.
3. On the converse, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was not directly appointed as Area Manger in the year 1996 but his appointment to the said post was the result of promotion from Sale Representative to Sales Officer and then to Sales Manager , and finally to Area Manger that the services of the petitioner were terminated due to poor performance and not on political basis as such said Act is not applicable to the petitioner's case.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. It is an admitted fact that against inaction of the respondents for reinstatement in service under the Act ibid some of the colleagues of the petitioners filed writ petitions, which were allowed by this Court by way of judgment reported as Nazar Muhammad Warraich and 7 others vs. Zonal Head, State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, Sialkot and another (2017 PLC (C.S) 685. All the objections/defence raised in this writ petition have been thoroughly dealt with by this Court in the said reported judgment. Against the said judgment the respondents preferred Intra Court Appeal which was dismissed by the learned Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 18.01.2016 passed in ICA No. 1781/15 and C.P. No. 405 to 411 of 2016 against the said judgments has been declined by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 05.05.2016 with the following observations: "A quick glance at the above quoted provisions would reveal that legislature in its wisdom provided for reinstatement of employees who having been appointed in between l' day of November , 1993 to 30thd days of November , 1996 were dismissed, removed or terminated from services or given forced golden handshake during or after the period mentioned above. It did not draw a line of distinction between the employees sacked on account of poor performance and those sacked on account of political victimization. We cannot under any canons of interpretation read in, political victimization in the Act, Therefore, neither the argument of learned ASC that where the Act like the NRO does not conform to the mandatory provisions of the Consti tution, it is non-est in the eye of law, therefore, claim of the respondents could not be enforced thereunder , is devoid of force unless of course, the Act or any of its provisions is declared as such. The argument that since poor performance is synonymous with misconduct, the respondents could not have approached the High Court for their reinstatement under the Act without having recourse to the Review Board is rather bizarre when the expression "misconduct" as defined in Act does not include poor performance". Having, thus, considered the view taken by the High Court appears to be correct. We don't feel persuaded to interfere therewith unless of course the law has been declared ultra vires and non-est by this. Court."
6. Learned counsel for the respondents could not show that the case of the petitioner is different to that of the petitioners in the above reported judgment which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, while accepting this writ petition, the petitioner is also held entitled to get benefit of Section 4 of the Act ibid.