1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.-The facts briefly narrated for the disposal of these petitions are that the petitioner filed Writ Petitions Nos. 18303 of 1998 and 18318 of 1998 taking exception to the judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal awarding compensations to the respective contesting respondents. The said writ petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution on 15-2-1999. The petitioner moved separate applications for the restoration of the above writ petitions. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, through separate orders, dated 20-10-1999 restored both the writ petitions to their original numbers subject to payment of costs of Rs,15,000 by the petitioner to the contesting respondents. The petitioner assailed both these orders before this Court through Civil Petitions Nos.93/L and 94/L of 2000. In the meantime, both the aforesaid writ petitions came up for hearing on 2-2-2000. Since the petitioner did not pay the costs to the respondents in spite of the fact that there was no restraint order from this Court and the petitioner was not even willing to comply with the order of payment of costs, as such in the circumstances the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petitions due to non-payment of costs through his orders, dated 2-2-2000. These orders of dismissal of writ petitions have been assailed before this Court through Civil Petitions Nos.1606/L and 1607/L of 2000.
2. ' We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire documents appended with these petitions. We have noticed that the respondents are striving hard for their relief for the last more than seven years for their sons who had expired during the course of their employment with the petitioner. They have not seen the conclusion of their litigation till date. They are being dragged by the petitioner unnecessarily to different forums. Non-compliance of the orders of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court by the petitioner in giving costs to the respondents cannot be taken exception particularly when the attitude of the petitioner is of non-cooperation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court.
3. ' Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the present petitions being devoid of any merit are hereby dismissed and .