' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---In instant Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal identical points of facts and law arising out of common judgment, dated 7th August, 2000 passed by Federal Service Tribunal are involved, therefore, we intend to dispose them of jointly.
2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that petitioners felt aggrieved from office memorandum issued by respondents whereby their services as Agricultural Engineers were terminated because they have become surplus. For redressal of their grievance they invoked the jurisdiction of Federal Service Tribunal by submitting separate Appeals Nos.350(L) to 352(L) of 1998 but they could not get relief vide impugned judgment, dated 7th August, 2000 principally for reasons which have been incorporated in para. 5 of impugned judgment which is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "5. We have perused the written arguments submitted by both the parties as well as the record. No doubt the appellants on appointment by the respondents, have accepted the terms and conditions given in their appointment letters dated 19-2-1992/ 28-10-1990/12-2-1978 and 13-8-1982 respectively, Clause 4 of the appointment matters is very relevant and is reproduced below for facility of reference:-- ' As a regular employee of the Company your employment will be subject to termination on three
(3) months' notice or payment of 3 months' salary in lieu thereof by either side.'
' In view of the above clause, it is abundantly clear that services of the appellants could be terminated on three months' notice or payment of three months' salary in lieu thereof by either side. This being so services of the appellants were rightly terminated by the respondents."
' Petitioners being aggrieved from the impugned judgment have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
4. Learned counsel contended that respondent-department has discriminated the petitioners by not following the policy governing the principle of retrenchment i.e, first come last go because admittedly there are many Agriculture Engineers who joined respondent-department after the petitioners but they have been allowed to continue in service. According to him if respondent's management intended to downsize its workers force due to completion of certain projects in its various divisions then the services of Junior Agriculture Engineers qua the petitioners should have been dispensed with. He further urged that learned Federal Service Tribunal declined to grant relief to the petitioners because they have accepted conditions incorporated in appointment letters that subject to three months' notice or payment of three months' salary in lieu thereof by either side their employment was liable to be terminated but Federal Service Tribunal committed error to note that this very clause exist in the appointment letters of Agriculture Engineers who joined respondent-organization later than petitioners. It was also urged by him that after insertion of section 2-A in Service Tribunals Act, 1973 petitioners have attained status of a civil servant to the extent of seeking relief from the Tribunal against the order of termination of their services, therefore, Service Tribunal had to decide their cases according to the settled principle pertaining to dispensing with the services of, surplus staff i.e, first come last go.
5. Learned counsel for respondents vehernently opposed instant petitions and contended that petitioners were not being governed by a statutory body, therefore, relationship between the employer and employee will be governed under the principle of master and servant and according to this concept of relationship between the parties petitioners could have at the best claimed compensation from the employer subject to establishing their illegal termination because as per one of the condition of appointment order their services were liable to be terminated subject to notice of three months or by making payment of salary in lieu thereof. He further stated that Federal Service Tribunal correctly relied on this condition of their service as such impugned judgment being not open to any exception may not be interfered.
6. We have heard parties' counsel and have also gone through list which has been supplied in pursuance of order, dated 9th July, 2001, a perusal whereof prima facie lends support to the contention of petitioners' counsel that the respondents have terminated the services of the petitioners in violation of principle of "first come last go". It may be noted that admittedly services of the petitioners have not been terminated on the ground of inefficiency, misconduct etc., therefore, the respondent department had a legal as well as moral obligation to strictly adhere the principle relating to termination/dispensing with the services of the employees if they have become surplus in the department. Be that as it may, from the respective contentions of parties' counsel following emanates for examination:--
(a) Whether service of the petitioners have been terminated as having become surplus in violation of principle "first come last go"?
(b) Whether petitioners have been discriminated because some of the Agriculture Engineers who joined service later than them have been retained in the service despite the fact that respondent- department intended to downsize its worker force?
(c) Whether impugned judgment has been passed by Federal Service Tribunal without taking into consideration that one of the conditions incorporated in their appointment letter that subject to notice of three months or payment of salary in lieu thereof their services were liable to be terminated is not applicable because same condition exists in the cases of junior officers from the petitioners who are allowed to remain in service?
(d) Whether on account of non-application of statutory rules petitioners were not entitled for any relief from Federal Service Tribunal because their relationship with the employer is governed by the concept of master and servant?
(e) Whether in view of section 2-A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 petitioners were not entitled for relief of reinstatement in service and at the best could have claimed compensation from the respondent because their services were governed by the concept of master and servant?
' Thus, to inter alia examine above points leave to appeal is granted.
' Civil Miscellaneous Applications are dismissed as no case is made out for grant of interim relief.
However, office is directed to fix the appeals arising out of these petitions within a period of six months after soliciting necessary approval from Hon'ble Chief Justice.