' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C.J.---Through this common judgment we intend to dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.1235 to 1245, 1248, 1371 to 1376 and 1405 to 1408, which have arisen from two identical judgments dated 13-2-2002 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter, referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeals Nos.111 to 114, 116 to 122, 115, 77 to 79, 88, 74, 75- P(CE)/2000 and 47, 49, 53 and 55-R(CE)/2000).
2. Background of these cases is that the petitioners herein were inducted into service by the respondent-United Bank Limited. Later, respondent-Bank introduced "retrenchment scheme" on 9- 10-1997 and in terms thereof the petitioners were retrenched from service with effect from 10-10- 1997 alongwith others. Some of them successfully challenged their termination from service under the said scheme before the Tribunal but this Court allowed the appeals filed by the respondent- Bank and upheld their terminations vide its judgment reported as United Bank Limited through President v. Shamim Ahmed Khan PLD 1999 SC 990. Thereafter, another group of retrenched employees, after exhausting their remedy before the Tribunal filed petitions for leave to appeal and this Court in Akram Zahoor v. Federation of Pakistan 2000 SCM R 1232, granted them the following relief:-
(i) Adjustment of loans obtained by the petitioners herein from the respondent-Bank shall be made strictly in accordance with the respective loan agreements executed between each of the petitioners and the respondent-Bank.
(ii) The grant of pensionary benefits shall be available to those petitioners who are found entitled in accordance with the Service Rules of the respondent-Bank in force at the time of termination of their service.
' A perusal of the judgment in Akram Zahoor (supra) would show that the colleagues of the petitioners had demanded several terminal benefits but the causes were remanded to the respondent-Bank for re-consideration to the extent of two facts indicated above.
3. Pursuant to the remand order, the respondent-Bank looked into the above two facets thoroughly but did not grant any relief to the retrenched employees on the grounds that the services of the employees were terminated and they had not retired from service, therefore, they were not entitled to any pensionary benefits within the purview of rule 17 of the UBL Staff Service Rules, 1981 read with para.3(a) of the Staff Circular No,192. They were also obliged to pay the outstanding loan advances in lump sum in view of the terms and conditions of the agreements on the subject, which had not been disputed. Feeling aggrieved, the employees took the matter before the Tribunal but without any success and the petitions for leave to appeal filed by them in this Court were dismissed on 23- 11-2001. See Tariq Inayat v. United Bank Limited C.Ps. 2292 of 2001, etc.
4. The petitioners herein did not challenge their retrenchment dated 10-10-1997 before any forum at all, but after passage of judgment in Akram Zahoor (supra) they approached the Tribunal for grant of relief allowed to the employees therein, inter alia, on the ground that they were discriminated against in respect of terms and conditions of their service under the relevant rules as well as the law laid down by this Court and were entitled to the same relief which was granted to their colleagues in Akram Zahoor (supra).
5. The Tribunal did not accept their plea and while dismissing the appeals in limine observed that the same were to be filed within 30 days of the termination order which was not done, therefore, not only the appeals were beyond time but the matter was also past and closed. It was further observed that the judgments of Courts of law are always prospective and not retrospective except in cases where rights of the parties are yet to be determined by the Courts and that the judgment in Akram Zahoor (supra) is not "judgment in rem".
6. Mr. Abdur Rashid Awan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner vehemently argued that the Tribunal did not consider the matter in detail though the appeals before it were in the nature of first appeals as provided in Civil Procedure Code, 1908. In support of his contention he relied on Ali Muhammad v. Commissioner Afghan Refugees, N.-W.F.P. (1995 SCM R 1675). He further argued that after the announcement of the judgment in Akram Zahoor (supra), the petitioners were entitled to the same benefits which were extended to the employees similarly placed, therefore, fresh cause of action had accrued to them. He argued that since the matter related to dues as to service benefits, therefore, recurring cause of action was available to the petitioners. He placed reliance on Muhammad Ahmed v. Government of Sindh (1999 SCM R 255). He finally argued that in view of the judgment in Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. Secretary Establishment Division (1996 SCM R 1185), the petitioners were also entitled to the same benefits which were granted to the employees similarly placed though they were not party to that judgment.
7. Raja Muhammad Akram, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank submitted that the petitioners filed appeals before the Tribunal after about 3 years from the date of their termination from service, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeals in limine being time-barred and past and close transactions. He further contended that in Akram Zahoor (supra), this Court had directed the respondent-Bank to examine matter on two points i.e, regarding (i) adjustment of loans and (ii) payment of pensionary benefits.
The respondent-Bank complied with the directions and it was submitted that in the case of loans, the same could be deducted in lump sum at the time of termination of their services whereas the pensionary benefits were given strictly in accordance with the rules applicable at that time. He went on to submit that in Akram Zahoor (supra) this Court observed that the same being a consent judgment shall not be quoted as precedent. He further argued that in subsequent cases this Court observed that the aggrieved employees could file applications before the respondents-Bank, which would deal with same in accordance with directions given in Akram Zahoor (supra). He added that all these matters have been considered by this Court in Tariq Inayat v. United Bank Ltd.
(C.P. 2292 of 2001 etc.) and the judgment has been announced today declining leave to appeal which is fully applicable to these cases.
8. We have considered the arguments addressed at the Bar and the case-law referred to by the learned counsel for the parties as also perused the impugned judgments. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the appeals before the Tribunal, being in the nature of first appeals should not have been dismissed in limine in view of the law laid down in Ali Muhammad (supra) is misconceived inasmuch as, in the precedent case it has been clearly laid down, that the Tribunal may dismiss an appeal in limine where the same, on the face of it, is barred A by time, barred by any law and disputed questions of law and facts are noninvolved.
9. As regard the remaining contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we suffice by observing that even if the appeals before the Tribunal are held to be within time as a special case, the petitioners are not entitled to any terminal benefit in view of the judgments in Akram Zahoor and Tariq Inayat (supra).
10. Resultantly, the petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.