' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- These petitions have been filed against the judgment dated 28th April, 2001 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Camp at Karachi, whereby service appeals filed by respondents against termination of the service, were allowed and they were reinstated in service accordingly.
2. Precisely stating facts, necessary for disposal of these petitions, are that respondents were accepted as trainees under the Talent Pool Scheme by means of letters of Appointment issued from time to time. As the relevant terms and condition of the appointment letters are identical, therefore, condition No,1 of the letter of appointment dated 14th September, 1994 issued in the case of Munawar Ahmed Sheikh is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "Under the Talent Pool Scheme you shall undergo comprehensive training in our organization.
During the training period you shall receive a fixed stipend of Rs,4,000 (Rupees four thousand only) p.m. Please note that the Talent Pool Scheme does not entitle the management trainee for a regular job/service in the company. Your appointment as a regular employee in the company's service shall depend entirely on the discretion of the company and subject to your performance evaluation during the stipulated training period of two years (maximum), and on existence of suitable vacancy. Kindly note that your employment may be terminated at any time without any notice, should your performance during the training period be considered unsatisfactory by the company."
3. It so happened that subsequently their services were terminated without assigning any reason as such they agitated their grievance before the Federal Service Tribunal. Appeals so filed by them have been accepted vide impugned judgment. As such instant petitions have been filed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inter alia contended that in identical cases, Service Tribunal declined to grant relief to the employees, whose services were terminated in the same matter. In this behalf, he made reference to the judgment in Service Appeals Nos.1407(L), 1408(L) and 1414(L) of 1998. He also pointed out that the judgment, dated 17th October, 1998, arising out of these appeals, was also challenged before this Court in Civil Petitions Nos.2049-L, 2050-L and 2051- L of 1998 (2007 PLC (C.S.) 134) but leave to .Appeal was declined to them, after taking into consideration earlier decision of this Court in the case of Ghiasuddin Sheikh and others v.
Federation of Pakistan and others Civil Petitions Nos.507-K to 513-K of 1998. He has also referred to the last mentioned judgment, copy of which is also available on paper book No,2. He further contended that this Court in another recent judgment, delivered by a larger Bench, in Civil Appeals Nos.366 to 378 of 2001, etc. Has held that the employees who are on the contract basis in different organization cannot claim that after the expiry of the period of contract, they will be deemed to be permanent employee.
' Learned counsel further contended that as there is inconsistency in the judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal referred to hereinabove as well as in the judgment which has been impugned herein and this Court has also not interfered with them as leave to appeal was refused to the employees, therefore, interference may be made in the impugned judgment as it gives rise to point of public importance.
' After hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and having gone through the judgment referred to by him during the course of arguments, we are inclined to grant leave to appeal in all these petitions.
' Applications for stay is declined at this stage because after passing of impugned order by the Service Tribunal on 28th April, 2001, respondents have assumed their duties, therefore, it is not fair and just to suspend the impugned order at this belated stage.