' I intend to decide Writ Petitions Nos.3769 of 1988 and 3770 of 1988 by one consolidated judgment having similar facts and law.
2. The brief facts giving rise to these writ petitions are that Khan Muhammad joined service of petitioners as Junior Store Keeper on 26-8-1961. Subsequently he was promoted as Senior Store Keeper in BS-7 by petitioner vide order, dated 21-5-1975. Similarly respondent Muhammad Hanif was appointed Junior Store Keeper by the petitioners on 9-7-1960 and subsequently he was promoted to the post of Senior Store Keeper in BS.7 vide order, dated 1-6-1973. The petitioner enhanced the scale of Senior Store Keeper from BS-7 to 12 vide instructions, dated 4-9-1986. The petitioner also issued policy letter on 23-9-1986 against letter and spirit of. Rules, 1986 to grant the higher pay scale to the Store Staff. The present petitioners in response to the instructions, dated 23- 9-1986 enhanced basical scale to M/s. Akram Butt; Nazir Hussain; Muhammad Ashraf and Abdul Majeed Senior Store Keeper through office order, dated 29-9-1986 who were too junior to respondents. The petitioners did not award the benefits to the private respondents on the basis of aforesaid instructions. The aforesaid private respondents being aggrieved sent grievance notice to the petitioners on 18-10-1986. The petitioners did not send reply of grievance notice to the respondents. The private respondents being aggrieved, filed grievance petitions before the Punjab Labour Court No,7, Gujranwala under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969, which were returned to respondents to approach. The Federal Service Tribunal as private respondents are civil servant by virtue of section 17(1-B) of the WAPDA Act read with section 4(2) of the Federal Service Tribunals Act and by virtue of Article 212 of the Constitution vide order, dated 14-3-1988. The private respondents being aggrieved, filed appeals before the Punjab Appellate Tribunal under section 37(3) of I.R.O., 1969 which were accepted and cases were remanded to Labour Court for decision on merits vide consolidated judgment, dated 25-5-1988; hence the present writ petitions.
3. The petitioner's counsel submits that private respondents are civil servants by virtue of section 17(1)B of WAPDA Act, therefore, Punjab Labour Court was justified under law to direct the respondents to approach Federal Service Tribunal by virtue of Article 212 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act. In support of their contentions, they relied upon the following judgments:-- ' Waseem Ahmed v. WAPDA (1997 SCMR 2000) unreported judgment Writ Petition No,14770 of 1997, decided on 17-3-1999.
4. Learned counsel for respondents submits that writ petitions have become infructuous on account of following subsequent events:--
(i) Muhammad Ali respondent was retired on 15-11-1999 whereas Khan Muhammad was retired on 31-3-1995.
' This Court stayed the proceedings before the Labour Court vide order, dated 9-7-1988 and subsequently, the same order was modified by this Court vide order, dated 4-4-1989. The Labour Court accepted the petitions of private respondents vide order, dated 25-9-1989. The present petitioners filed appeals before the Punjab Appellate Tribunal which were dismissed vide judgments, dated 1-12-1989. The petitioners' being aggrieved, filed Writ Petition No,3479 of 1990 and Writ Petition No,3480 of 1990 which were dismissed for non-prosecution vide order, dated 12-12- 1994 and same were not restored by this Court till date. He further submits that judgment of Appellate Tribunal is in accordance with law as the petitioner did promote the private respondents as is evident from the written statement tiled by petitioners before the Punjab Labour Court; that Service Tribunal has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter by virtue of section 4(1)(B) and the law laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:-- ' 1983 PLC 812, (Ikram Ullah Khan's case); 1983 PLC 1265 (Bashir Ahmed's case); ' PLD 1990 Lah. 352 (Muhammad Azhar's case); ' 1993 PLC (C.S.) 576 (Tahir Mehmood;s case); ' 1994 PLC (C.S.) 138 (M.R. Khalid's case); ' 1997 PLC (C.S. 127 (Muhammad Ihsan-ul-Haq's case); ' I.A. Sherwani's case (1991 SCMR 1041); ' (1985 PLC (C.S.) 390) Muhammad Ashraf Naseem's case and.
' WAPDA v. Muhammad Ashraf (1997 SCMR 1128).
' In rebuttal the petitioners' counsel submits that respondents have not filed written statement till date, the facts narrated by respondents' counsel are not in their knowledge, therefore, cases cannot be decided on the facts given by respondents' counsel. The Writ Petition No,3479 of 1990 and Writ Petition No,3480 of 1990 were restored by this Court vide order, dated 28-6-1999.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is admitted fact that Punjab Appellate Tribunal remanded the cases to Labour Court to decide the same afresh on merits through impugned judgment, dated 25-5-1988.
It is also admitted fact that proceedings before the Labour Court were stayed vide order, dated 9- 7-1988. Subsequently, this Court modified the order dated 9-7-1988 vide order, dated 4-4-1989 in the following terms:- "Heard. It is not disputed that the important questions of law involved in the case require consideration. Learned counsel for the respondent adds that the Labour Court should be allowed to decide the matter on merits and in case the ultimate decision goes against the WAPDA, the respondent will not claim benefit of the said order pending the decision of this petition. The offer made is reasonable. Let the Labour Court decide the matter on merits but if the respondent succeeds, he will not claim benefit of the said order till the decision of this petition. The prayer of the interim relief stands disposed of accordingly."
' After the modification of order, the grievance petitions were accepted by the Punjab Labour Court No,7 vide order, dated 25-9-1989 on merits. The petitioners filed appeals before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which were dismissed vide judgment, dated 11-12-1989. The certified copies of same have been placed on record by respondents' counsel. The present petitioners also filed Writ Petitions Nos.3479 of 1990 and 3480 of 1990 before this Court which are pending adjudication, as per statement of the petitioners' counsel whereas the same were dismissed for non-prosecution on 12-12-1994. The same were not restored till date as is evident from the original order sheets of the aforesaid writ petitions. It is settled proposition of law that this Court has ample jurisdiction to take the judicial notice of orders or judgment passed by the Punjab Labour Court No,7 and Punjab Appellate Tribunal between the same parties after remand vide order, dated 25-9-1989 and judgment, dated 11-12-1989 of the Punjab Appellate Tribunal as the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pir Sabir Shah's case (PLD 1994 SC 738) and Pir Sabir Shah v. Shah Muhammad Khan (PLD 1995 SC 66). Since the grievance petitions filed by respondents had been finally decided after remand by the Punjab Labour Court, therefore, there is no live issue existed between the parties in these writ petitions as the principle laid down in Abdul Majeed's case(1984 SCMR 1302). It is settled principle of law that this Court has ample powers to look into the subsequent events as is held by Division Bench of Karachi High Court in:-- "(1990 CLC 1069) Nasir Jamal's case."
' In view of what has been discussed above and on account of subsequent events, these writ petitions have become infructuous. Disposed of as such. The other contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties need not to decide on account of subsequent events.