' AKBAR M. MEMON (MEMBER).---Appellant hereinabove, who was appointed as Management Trainee vide order dated 29-5-1996, has challenged his termination order dated 11-2-1999.
2. The present appellant had filed appeal along with as many as 230 other incumbents. The entire lot of 229 appeals was allowed vide judgment dated 13-4-2001 whereas one appeal of appellant, Shahnawaz Umrani was dismissed on the point of limitation, who being aggrieved of the judgment dated 13-4-2001 approached Hon'ble Supreme Court, from where his case was remanded and finally the said appeal was allowed on 16-4-2002.
2. Mr. M.M. Jeelani, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the present appellant had filed his appeal before this Tribunal on 11-3-1999 immediately on receipt of the termination letter dated 11-2-1999. He has contended that identical appeals of as many as 229 appellants were allowed by this Tribunal on 13-4-2001 and since the case of the present appellant is identical on all fours, the present appeal is liable to be allowed on the rule of consistency with all back-benefits.
3. Mr. Asim Iqbal, learned `counsel for the respondents has referred the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. Anwar Ali Sahto reported in 2002 PLC (C.S.) 1083. At the same time, he has referred the judgment of this Tribunal in case of Nazeer Ahmed and others (Appeal No,253- K/99 and others) and has admitted that the same was not challenged by the respondents before Hon'ble Supreme Court, as such, the present appeal be decided on merits.
4. In reply, Mr. Jeelani, learned counsel for the %appellant has contended that the appellant was initially appointed on probation for a period of one year and the company was required to confirm the appointment under rule 6.2 of the Sui Gas Transmission Co. Ltd., Executive Service Rules, 1982 after completion of the probation period, but instead of confirming the appellant, he was abruptly terminated, which could only be done when his working was not satisfactory or that he was guilty of misconduct.
5. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have gone through the appeal file. At the same time, we have gone through the judgment rendered by this Tribunal on 13-4-2001 in respect of appellants Nazir Ahmed and 228 others. It is pertinent to bring it on record that this judgment was not at all challenged by the respondents before Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, it had attained finality. Considering the facts of the case of appellant in Appeal No,253 and others and also taking into consideration the facts of the appellant in hand, it would appear that the facts of the present appeal are almost A identical on all fours with the cases of other appellants, whose appeals have been allowed. Since the facts of the appeal in hand are identical on facts and law, we are of the view that rule of consistency has to prevail as the appeal of Nazir Ahmed and others v. Sui Southern Gag Company Ltd., rendered by this Tribunal on 13-4- 2001 was not challenged by the respondents and the same had reached finality. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to absorb the appellant in his respective discipline on the same lines as was done in the case of Nazir Ahmed and others with all back- benefits.
6. The appeal stands disposed of as above with no order as to costs. Parties concerned be informed accordingly.