ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.--- This order shall dispose of the instant writ petition as well as Writ Petition No, 6207 of 2015 titled "Imran Khan v. National Bank of Pakistan etc.", as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions.
2. Both petitioners have sought a direction to the respondents/bank to grant them the benefit of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as Ikram Bari and 524 others v. National Bank of Pakistan through President and another (2005 SCM R 100).
3. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of these writ petitions are that both petitioners namely, Atta-ul- Haq and Muhammad Imran, were appointed as godown Chowkidar/godown keeper on 18.12.1991 and 03.12.2001 respectively, but by showing the artificial breaks, their services were discontinued with mala fide intention and just to avoid their regularization in service. The petitioners approached the Federal Services Tribunal for the said purpose through a service appeal which had abated in view of Mubeen-ul-Islam's case (PLD 2006 SC 602) whereafter petitioners approached the Labour Court and the matter was disposed of for being outside its jurisdiction, against which the petitioners again filed appeal before the Federal Services Tribunal and when they remained un- successful, approached the Supreme Court where their appeal was disposed of on 25.08.2011 permitting them to approach the Labour Court but instead of filing the petition before the Labour Court, they preferred to directly approach this Court for the requisite relief.
4. In the report and parawise comments submitted by respondents, it is specifically alleged in paragraphs Nos,7 and 8, that Writ Petition No, 2973 of 2013 filed by the petitioners was allowed on 14.05.2014 but the said order was set aside by the Divisional Bench of this Court on 14.09.2015 which order was assailed before the Supreme Court where it was dismissed and as such the principle of resjudicata is attracted against the petitioners debarring him to file the instant writ petition.
However, learned counsel for the petitioners, in rebuttal, submits that petitioners have been discriminated against when similarly placed persons namely, Arshad Bhullar and Naveed Akhtar, have been regularized.
5. Arguments heard. Files perused.
6. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed as members of godown staff on temporary basis and their services were extended from time to time. On 02.11.2011, petitioner/Atta-ul-Haq, filed Writ Petition No,22431 of 2011 in which a direction was issued to respondents to decide the grievance petition within one month keeping in view Ikram Bari ' s case reported as (2005 SCM R 100). On 30.11.2012, another Writ Petition No,9839 of 2012 filed by the petitioner/Atta-ul-Haq, was disposed of keeping in view the agreement by respondents to consider the petitioner's case with reference to the case supra whereafter the case was remitted to respondent No,1 to decide it within six weeks.
He filed another Writ Petition No,2973 of 2013 which was disposed of on 14.05.2014 while observing that petitioner/Atta-ul-Haq, was appointed on 18.12.1991 and worked till 2003 without any break of more than 15 days between two consecutive appointments and as such he has completed more than 3 years of his service, therefore, the said writ petition was allowed in the light of judgment titled Ikram Bari and 524 others v. National Bank of Pakistan through President and another (2005 SCM R 100). However, an Intra Court Appeal No,542 of 2014 filed by the respondent-bank was allowed by a Divisional Bench of this Court and the writ petition was dismissed on the point of non- maintainability while specifically observing that when the writ petition was filed, the petitioner was not in service. This order was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petitions Nos,3420 to 3430 of 2015 in which both petitioners were party as petitioners Nos,11 and 10 respectively. The said order is reproduced as under:- "With the intent to approach the learned Labour Court for redresssal of their grievance, learned counsel for the petitioners does not press these petitions. However, any observation made by the learned High Court, which may be detrimental to the merits of the respondents' case would not come in their way. Dismissed accordingly."
7. It is also not denied by the petitioners that ever since the order passed by the Supreme Court, the petitioners had not moved the Labour Court but have preferred to file the present writ petitions on the ground of discrimination. However, such ground of discrimination may be agitated before the Labour Court where as per the order passed by the Supreme Court, the petitioners may file the grievance petition. The principle of resjudicata is fully attracted in these writ petitions. Reliance is placed upon State Bank of Pakistan through Governor and another v. Imtiaz Ali Khan (2012 SCM R 280) and Muhammad Saleem Ullah and others v. Additional District Judge, Gujranwala and others (PLD 2005 SC 511).
8. In this view of the matter, these writ petitions have found non- maintainable and are, therefore, dismissed.