' The three appeals captioned above emerge from the decisions dated 9-2-1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petitions of the appellants for their reinstatement in service have been dismissed. As common questions of fact and law are involved in all the appeals, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The facts are that the appellants were directly appointed as STEs somewhere in 1974. Their services were terminated on 28-4-1986 by way of implementing the decision dated 22-1-1978 passed by Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, which was upheld by this Tribunal in appeal and further confirmed in writ petition. The decision dated 22-1-1978 was based upon a settlement of 1969, according to which, all vacancies in the subordinate cadre were agreed to be filled in by cent per cent promotion. The appellants were not party nor at that time the depots in which they were employed had come in existence. The settlement is of 1969, whereas the depots in which the appellants were employed were found somewhere in 1975. Thus no Union of the said depots was party to the settlement and, therefore, the settlement was not binding upon the appellants. Same kind of view has been taken by this Tribunal in Appeal No, 366 of 1987 titled as P.R.T.C. v. Shabbir Hussain Shah decided on 8-12-1987. However, to fill in the new vacancies the respondents may adopt a uniform policy by following the decision dated 22-1-1978 passed by Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore but the persons, who were not party to the said decision nor their Unions were party to the settlement which is the basis of the said decision, could not be made to suffer on the plea of implementation of the said decision.
3. As a result, the appeals are accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petitions of the appellants are accepted and they are directed to be reinstated in service. Since on account of the stay order the appellants have remained on duty, no question of back benefits arises nor during arguments any such prayer has been made.