' This judgment will dispose of W.P. Nos. 5206/90, 5207/90, 5208/90 and 5209/90 in which common questions of law and facts arise for determination and are directed against the order dated 6-12- 1989 and notice issued by respondent No,1 on 10-6-1990.
2. Munshi Masih father of respondent No,2 in W.P. No,5206/90, who was an employee of the petitioner, filed an application on 8-6-1988 for the recovery of Rs,24,420 as gratuity, compulsory benefits and pension. Similar applications were filed by Muhammad Anwar, respondent No,2 in W.P.
No,, 5207/90 and Sharif Masih respondent No,2 in W.P. Nos. 5208/90 and 5209/90. These applications were initially contested by the petitioner. However, on 10-9-1989, the Chief Officer of the petitioner appeared before respondent No,1 and stated that the Municipal Committee had decided that after completing the requisite formalities, the amount in dispute be paid to the respondents. On 20-10-1989 an application was presented by Sh. Nauroze Ali, Chief Officer, before respondent No,1 that the respondents be directed to receive their dues from the office of the Municipal Committee. On 6-12-1989 the order impugned in these petitions was passed by respondent No,1 observing that as the claim of respondent No,2 has been admitted by the petitioner, the respondents should receive their dues from the Municipal Committee. It was directed that the amount in question should be paid to the respondents before 31st December, 1989 or be deposited with respondent No,1 before 31-1-1990. As no payment was made in pursuance to this order, respondent No,1 on 10-6-1990 issued notice directing the petitioner to make the payment or to appear before it on 21-6-1990. The order dated 6-12-1989 and the notice dated 10-6-1990 has been assailed by the petitioner-Municipal Committee in all these petitions.
3. Ch. Hafeez Ahmad, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the proceedings before respondent No,1 had been stayed by this I Court in W.P. Nos.2514 and 2516 of 1989 filed by the petitioner but respondent No,1 proceeded to hear the matter in defiance of the order of this Court and the proceedings taken by it are nullity in the eyes of law. This contention of the learned counsel is not well-founded. The record W.P. No, 2516/89 and W.P. 2514/89 has been perused. These writ petitions were filed by the petitioner against its other employees and not respondent No,2, who was not a party to those proceedings. The effect of the stay order issued in those cases, cannot be extended to the present cases also.
' It was then submitted by the learned counsel that the Committee had never consented to pay the disputed amount to the respondents but in fact only a proposal to settle the dispute was considered in the meeting of the Municipal. Committee held on 1st of October, 1989 but no decision was taken in that meeting and the matter was adjourned. It is, however, to be seen from the record that the Chief Officer of the petitioner had appeared before the respondent No,1 on 10th September, 1989 and had categorically stated that the Municipal Committee had decided to pay of the applicants in those proceedings. On 30th October, 1989, an application to the same effect was presented before respondent No,1 in which it was prayed that the necessary orders be issued by the respondent-Authority so as to enable the petitioner to make payments. It cannot, therefore, be contended with any success that the petitioner had never undertaken to pay the amount in question. Even otherwise, these petitions, which are against consent orders are not maintainable.
4. It is also to be noticed that though the order impugned in these petitions was passed on 6- 124989 but the present petitions were filed on 24th July, 1990 i.e. After about 8 months and, therefore, suffer from laches. The explanation rendered by the learned counsel that the petitioner was not aware of the order passed by respondent No,1 is not acceptable as admittedly the representative of the petitioner had been appearing in the proceedings before respondent No,1 on various dates. For the foregoing reasons these petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.