1. ' AJM AL MIAN, C.J.---By this common order we intend to dispose of the above 42 petitions for leave to appeal which are directed against a common judgment, dated 28-7-1998 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No,139-K of 1998 and connected appeals mentioned in the title of the judgment filed by the respondents challenging the compulsory Golden Handshake Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) for dispensing with the respondents' services on payment of amounts mentioned in the Scheme, allowing to same in the following terms:-- "In view of the above we are of the opinion that the impugned order suffers from several irreparable irregularities rather illegalities, therefore, the impugned order cannot be upheld which is hereby set aside. The respondent Bank is directed to reinstate the appellants subject to the recovery of any retirement benefits, if any. However, in view of the previously prevailing ambiguity about the jurisdiction of forum and the status of the employees, we do not consider fit to order the payment of the benefits for the intervening period and, therefore, the intervening period may be treated as leave of any kind due. This judgment shall be without prejudice to the right of the Bank to initiate any scheme providing for the opportunity of hearing, option of retirement or option of reversion by a transparent policy of retrenchment with the approval of the concerned authorities."
2. ' The Scheme was introduced in order to down size the number of the staff for reducing the expenses of the Bank. One of us (Ajmal Mian, J. As then he was) in the leave granting order dated 31-10-1997 in the case of United Bank Limited and others v. Ahsan Akhtar and others (1998 SCM R 68) has referred to the reason and detail of the Scheme. It appears that inter alia the respondents were not given the option to opt for the Scheme, but the same was applied to them compulsorily and their services were dispensed with on payment of compensation provided in the scheme. It appears that in view of the incorporation of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by Service Tribunals (Amendments) Act, 1997 (which provided "that service under any authority, corporation, body or organization established by or under a Federal Law or which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government or in which the Federal Government has a controlling share or interest is hereby declared to be service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under such authority, corporation, body or organization shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purpose of this Act"), the respondents filed the above appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal, which were resisted by the petitioner bank on various grounds, the same were allowed in the above terms. The petitioner bank has, therefore, filed the present petitions for leave to appeal.
3. ' In support of the above petitions Raja Muhammad Akram, learned counsel for the petitioner bank, has inter alia contended as under:--
(i) That in spite of the fact that the respondents were deemed to be civil servants for the purpose of the Act, they remained employees of a corporation and, therefore, in the absence of any statutory rules the relationship between the petitioner and the respondents was that of the master and servant. In this respect reliance has been placed on the cases of Raziuddin v. Chairman, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and 2 others (PLD 1992 SC 531) and United Bank Limited v. Ahsan Akhtar and others (1998 SCM R 68).
(ii) That the petitioner bank was entitled to down size the number of the staff in view of the economic stress. Reliance was placed on the case of K. Rajendran and others etc. Etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu and others (AIR 1982 SC 1107), para. 35 at page 1120).
(iii) That the petitioner bank was entitled to re-organize its business in order to run it more efficiently and if in the above process some members of the staff have become redundant, it was entitled to terminate their services. Reliance was placed on the case of Zeal Pak Cement Factory Ltd., Hyderabad v. The Chairman, West Pakistan Industrial Court, Lahore and others (PLD 1965 SC 420).
(iv) That the learned Tribunal has enunciated various points of law in the impugned judgment contrary to the law enunciated by the superior Courts.
(v) That the Tribunal erred in ordering the reinstatement of the respondents in the above terms.
4. ' On-the other hand Messrs Akram Sheikh, Raja Muhammad Akram and A. Mujeeb Pirzada, learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently urged that though there may be some error on the part of the Tribunal in enunciating the legal position on the various points, but the conclusion, namely, that the Scheme was illegally applied to the respondents, was correct. According to them, the Scheme was, inter alia, violative of Article 25 of the Constitution and also was in breach of the principle of natural justice.
5. We are inclined to grant leave to consider as to whether the impugned judgment is in consonance with the law enunciated by this Court.
6. ' As regards the interlocutory relief, we are inclined to order that the petitioner should either re- induct the respondents into service, or should pay to them future monthly salaries till the .Disposal of the appeal arising from the above petitions, subject to the condition that the respondents would return the amounts received by them from the petitioner bank within a period of two weeks. The appeals arising from the above petitions may be fixed for hearing within a period of six months.
7. Leave to .