' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, C.J.--- We propose to dispose of above mentioned 11 petitions for leave to appeal by a consolidated order as the questions of law and facts involved in these cases are identical and they also arise from the same impugned judgment.
2. Private respondents in the above petitions were working as Chowkidars, gardners, helpers etc. In the Irrigation Department for a number of year. Their services were terminated by the department describing them as work-charged employees. The respondents filed grievance petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (I.R.O.) before the Labour Court but their grievance petitions were dismissed on 12-1-1994 with the observation that the grievance petitions were not maintainable in law. However, on appeal the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab reversed the judgment of the Labour Court, by judgment, dated 18-7-1996 and the private respondents have been directed to be reinstated in service with half back benefits. The Province of Punjab is now seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of learned Labour Appellate Tribunal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in seeking leave to appeal, inter alia, contended that private respondents being work-charged employees, could not be ordered to be reinstated in service. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the grievance petitions filed by the petitioners were not maintainable in view of section I (4)(c) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners require examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal to consider the same.