' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH J.---By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of these petitions, which are identical in nature and directed, against a consolidated judgment, dated 27-2- 2003, passed by the Federal, Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeals Nos.239, 354, 363 and 376(K)(CE) of 2000.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioners are sister concerns, as petitioner No,1 is the 100% subsidiary of petitioner No,2, and the respondents herein were terminated by petitioner No,1 on 1-2-2000 and 2-2-2000 on the ground of no longer required. Even in the year 1992, services of the respondents were terminated, and they challenged their termination orders before learned Labour Court, as a result thereof they were reinstated with all benefits, against which petitioners filed appeal before the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal where the matter concluded in terms of compromise and respondents restarted their working with the petitioners. The respondents were again terminated without issuance of Show-Cause Notice or holding of enquiry.
3. Feeling aggrieved, respondents challenged the validity of the termination orders before the Tribunal, through appeals, which were allowed reinstating them with all back-benefits vide impugned judgment herein, hence these petitions.
4. Mr.M.G. Dastgir, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners, inter alia, contended that the learned; Tribunal has erred in holding that the respondents had not accepted VRF voluntarily; that the learned Tribunal has also failed to appreciate that the respondents were terminated on the ground of no longer required, and VRF was introduced by the petitioners on 25-5-2000 in order to allow. Additional benefits to the employees including the respondents whose services were terminated earlier, therefore, the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal is not in accordance with law. In support of his contentions he referred to Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal No,217-K to 219-K, 59-K to 145-K, 152-K to 205-K and 220-K to 265-K of 2002. Learned counsel further pointed out that respondent-Muhammad Kaleemuddin filed VRF on 30-6-2000, which was approved by the competent authority/petitioners on 3rd July, 2000.
5. We have considered the agreements of learned counsel for the petitioners and minutely scanned the material available on the file. The present petitions were filed in time and were not barred by time, as pointed out by the office.
6. Perusals of the record shows that all appeals identical to Appeal No,198 (K) (CE) of 2000 were allowed by the Tribunal and the employees were reinstated with all back-benefits vide judgment dated 3-3-2001. The aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal was challenged by the petitioners- Management in this Court by filing Petition No,306-K of 2001, which was dismissed, and leave declined. The Tribunal also followed the judgment of this Court passed in C.P.No,306-K of 2001 reproducing its relevant paragraphs at page 21 of the paper book. Furthermore, another set of Appeals bearing No,214-K of 2000 and others was decided by the Tribunal on 9-9-2002, which had attained finality because the petitioners did not challenge the above judgment. Perusal of the record and careful examination of the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners, shows that respondents challenged the order of the management whereby their services Were terminated on no longer required basis, without show-cause' notice or providing opportunity of personal hearing to them. The learned Tribunal rightly observed that pick and choose method was adopted by the petitioners. In the cases referred to by the learned counsel we find that the employees had opted for voluntary retirement and received their dues; the relevant paragraph of the judgment (available at page 2 of part-II of paper book bearing No,C.P.233-K of 2003) reads as under:- " Admittedly, on 8-6-2000, petitioner Muhammad Ali Memon requested for voluntary retirement from service, which was accepted by the employer vide order dated 20-6-2000. He was advised to submit No Demand Certificates from all concerned Departments of the Mills for final settlement of his dues and, thereafter, he received from respondent No,1 a sum of Rs,14,34,463 in full and final settlement. Shahnawaz Ahmed Khan petitioner after submitting No Demand Certificates received Rs,5, 96,397 as full and final settlement. Abdul Rasheed petitioner received a sum of Rs,5,25,777 as full and final settlement of his dues."
' The relevant portion of the judgment of this Court, dated 27-2-2002, passed in above-referred C.Ps. No,59-K of 2002 etc., (available at page 21 of part II of paper book of C.P.No,233-K of 2003) reads as under:- ' It is also admitted by the learned counsel that in compliance of the scheme all the petitioners had submitted no demand/clearance certificate and they had received all the dues from the respondent as final settlement. The transaction for all practical purposes is a past and closed chapter, which cannot be reopened in the absence Of compelling circumstances."
7. In the cases in hand the management has not paid any amount to the respondents, neither it is the case of the petitioners that they had made any payment to the respondents, therefore, the cases referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners are quite different and distinguishable and are not helpful. The Tribunal has given findings of fact on the issues agitated before it. The impugned judgment is well-reasoned and is based on the law laid down by this Court. Moreover, question of law of general public importance is not involved in these cases.
8. For the facts, circumstances and reasons mentioned herein above, these petitions are without merit and substances, which are dismissed and leave to appeal declined.