' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---This order shall dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.2681-L to 2692-L of 2004 as they arise out of the same consolidated judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 26-7-2004 and involve similar questions of law and facts.
2. The private respondents in all these petitions were employees of the National Press Trust whose services had been terminated. The appeals filed by them before the learned Tribunal were transferred to the High Court in the year 2001 in view of the provisions of section 31 of Ordinance LII of 2000. The learned High Court, however, found through a judgment, dated 17-4-2002, that the Federal Service Tribunal had the jurisdiction in the matter and consequently sent the appeals back to he learned Tribunal which were then decided through the above-mentioned impugned judgment.
3. The only prayer made by the private respondents before the learned Tribunal was that the benefit of a judgment of the learned Tribunal, dated 4-10-2003 passed in Appeals Nos.1339 to 1367(L) of 1999 be also extended to them. The learned Tribunal in the exercise of its discretionary powers over-ruled the objection relating to the limitation and directed the petitioner to consider the claim of the said respondents in the light of the above-mentioned judgment of the learned Tribunal, dated 4-10-2003 and to determine whether the case of the present private respondents was at par with the case of the employees who had been granted benefit in pursuance of the said above-mentioned judgment. The learned Tribunal had added that this exercise should be undertaken by the employer if the said judgment of the learned Tribunal, dated 4-10-2003 was maintained by this Court where the same stood challenged at the relevant time.
4. We are informed by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner that the petition filed against the said judgment, dated 4-10-2003 had since been dismissed by this Court.
5. Through the judgment being impugned before us, the learned Tribunal had only directed that the private respondents before us should be given the same treatment which had been given by the learned Tribunal to the other similarly placed employees. No exception could be taken to such an order which only fosters indiscriminate justice. The question whether the case of the private respondents was similar to the case of the said employees was left to be decided by the petitioner.
6. We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner at some length who could not point out any illegality or D infirmity in the impugned judgment which could entitle the petitioner to the grant of leave in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution. Even otherwise the said judgment which was designed to foster justice is not open to any exception.
7. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed and leave refused.
8. In view of the contumacious conduct of the petitioner vis-a-vis these employees, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs,5,000 as costs to each of the private respondents in these petitions. The said amount of the costs shall he paid to the said respondents within one month and the copies of the receipts acknowledging the said payment shall be tiled with the Assistant Registrar of this Court within the said period of time for the information of this Bench.