' MUSARRAT HILALI, J.--- This judgment shall also decide Writ Petitions Nos.2210, 2211, 2212, 2213 and 2214 of 2013 as common question of law and fact is involved in all these petitions.
2. Impugned herein is the judgment dated 13-5-2013 recorded by learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar whereby revision petition of respondent No,1 against the judgment dated 15-3- 2012 passed by learned Labour Court, Peshawar has been accepted.
3. Background of the controversy is that about 51 employees of petitioners/bank filed grievance petitions before the Labour Court for their regularization in service, which were accepted and they were held entitled to regularization of their service in the Bank with back benefits from the date of institution of the grievance petitions. The respondent No,1 in all these petitions challenged the said judgments of the Labour Court before the Labour Appellate Tribunal by way of filing appeals, wherein, they sought back benefits from the date of their initial appointments instead from the date of institution of grievance petitions whereas the petitioners/bank also filed separate appeals against the said judgments. During pendency of the appeals, a development took place and out of 51 employees, forty-five employees opted to settle the dispute with the petitioners/bank for their regularization with effect from 1-9-2009 by relinquishing their past benefits whereas the respondents opted to contest their claim in the appeals. Accordingly, the appeals of the petitioners/bank in respect of 45 employees were dismissed as withdrawn whereas appeals of respondent No,1 in all these petitions were decided on merits and they were held entitled to such benefits on the basis of their length of service since their induction at the time of their retirement on superannuation or otherwise towards their pension etc. subject to no claim for arrears of salary etc. as per statement of counsel for respondents at the bar. Accordingly, the appeals of respondent No,1 were partially allowed while that of petitioners were dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners filed writ petitions before this court against the said judgment of Labour Appellate Tribunal but the same were also dismissed. Not contented with the said judgment, the respondents preferred petitions under section 66(2) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Industrial Relations Act, 2010 before the Labour Court for determination/fixation of their salary for the purpose of bringing it at par with other Class-IV employees of petitioners/bank, whe were appointed along with petitioners. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court, Peshawar dismissed the said petitions. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents moved Labour Revision Petitions before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar and the same accepted vide judgment dated 13-5-2013 herein impugned.
' Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and the material placed before us as well as the impugned judgment of learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar dated 13-5-2013, the only question that came up for consideration was whether the judgment passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court Peshawar dated 15-3-2012 based on the concession made by learned counsel for respondents was justified and the same did not call for interference.
' In order to resolve the controversy, the concession said to have been .made by learned counsel for respondents is reproduced below:--- "That in case of acceptance of these appeals of the appellants/employees, they shall have not claim of arrears in respect of salaries etc but would be of course entitled to its benefits on the basis of length of their service at the time of their retirement on superannuation or otherwise."
' Except the above quoted concession, there is nothing on record, which would reveal that respondents had surrendered some of the entitlements. Even, otherwise, if such concession is taken to be true, the same does not correctly reflects the factual situation inasmuch as the said concession was made without any instruction either verbal or in writing, thus, can not extinguish the rights of respondents as the courts are not to act on the concession made by the counsel but with reference to the applicable provisions of law and facts available before it. In our view, the concession made without instruction of the party is of no consequence and the same cannot be inured to the benefits of the other party.
' For what has been discussed above, no case warranting interference in the impugned judgment is made out, hence this and the connected petitions being devoid of legal merits are dismissed.