' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition has been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 12th February, 2001 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, whereby appeal filed by petitioner has been dismissed. For convenience operative para. From the impugned judgment is reproduced hereinlielow:-- "On merits there is no cavil from the proposition that no one can be condemned unheard and with utmost regards, we have to follow the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, but in the instant case distinctive circumstances are available, where this Tribunal can pass an independent judgment. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-- "The appointing authority withheld the reasons in some of the cases prevailed upon it for terminating their services and subsequently, when matter came up for hearing before Service Tribunal, uniformed reasons for termination were disclosed, therefore, under such circumstances, the employees have made out a case of providing them an opportunity to defend themselves."
' In the cited case, the reasons of termination of employees were exerting political pressure for their employment, hence it was obligatory on the part of the departmental authorities to give a fair chance to the employees, so they could defend themselves, whereas in the present case, the stance of respondents is only that according to the terms and contract the appellant's services were terminated and the termination of contract does not attach any stigma whatsoever."
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that petitioner, on having completed training period, was appointed as Terminal Officer vide order dated 15th October, 1996. Subsequent thereto on 12th September, 1997, petitioner was terminated from service. Being aggrieved from the termination order, after availing departmental remedies, he preferred writ petition before the Lahore High Court, Lahore which was disposed of on 9th September, 1998 on the point of jurisdiction as section 2-A was inserted in the Service Tribunals Act 1973 on 10th June, 1997, with the observation that let the petitioner approach the Service Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance. Accordingly, he preferred appeal on 1st August, 1998, which was admitted for regular hearing but subsequently same was dismissed by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.
3. It may be noted that Service Tribunal' considered the question of limitation raised by respondents but declined to non-suit the petitioner for such reason on the ground that he had been pursuing the matter before the learned High Court, diligently therefore, delay was condoned but relief was declined to him on merits.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in respect of issue involved in this case with regard to termination of employees of respondent Company, this Court vide judgment dated 17th May, 2004, passed in Civil Appeals Nos.15 to 47 of 2003 Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. v. M.
Akram Khan, and others reinstated to number of employees, who were recruited temporarily on contract basis, therefore, petitioner is also entitled for the same treatment.
5. Learned counsel appearing for caveat, when confronted with the above argument of the learned counsel for petitioner, contended that the facts and circumstances of the judgment, relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner, are distinguishable from the case in hand, therefore, the principle laid down in said judgment is not applicable on the case in hand.
6. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the impugned judgment as well as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner, carefully. It may be noted that in the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner, this Court while examining the identical question, involved in this case, came to the conclusion that the termination of the employees was illegal. Relevant para. Therefrom is reproduced hereinbalow:- "13. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant Company in Civil Petitions Nos.1829 to 1830 of 2001, 598-L and 744-L of 2001 that the services of the petitioners/employees were terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the contract according to which their services were liable to be terminated with immediate effect by giving one month's gross salary in lieu of one month's notice of termination. Irrespective of the above grounds which weighed with the Tribunal to non-suit the petitioners-employees was that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was limited and restricted and the petitioners-employees were not competent to resort the remedy under section 2-A of the Act of redressal of their grievance. All these questions have been thoroughly examined and dealt with elaborately by this Court in the connected cases of the same employees in the case of M/s. Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. Referred (supra) in the first round of litigation. Irrespective of the above case, this Court has also dealt with the same aspect of the cases of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) thfough Chairman and others v. Nasir Jamal Malick and others (2001 SCMR 934 = 2001 PLC (C.S.) 890), M/s. Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. v.
Muhammad Tahir Khan and others (PLD 2001 SC 980) and The Managing Director, Sui Southern Gas Co. Ltd. v. Saleem Mustafa Sheikh (PLD 2001 SC 126 = 2001 PLC (C.S.) 60). In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the services of all the above mentioned employees would be governed by clause relating to the dismissal as mentioned in the contract, of employees itself whereby the right of show-cause notice, reply whereof are to be provided."
' Since the identical question is involved in this case as well, therefore, following the dictum laid down in the above judgment, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner is also entitled for the same treatment.
' Thus for the foregoing reasons, instant petition is converted into appeal and allowed as a result whereof impugned judgment dated 12th February, 2001 is set aside and petitioner' is reinstated into service without back benefits.