2008 PLP 148 (SCMR)

HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.

These four civil petitions for leave to appeal are directed against judgment dated 9-2-2005 in Writ Petitions Nos.2532, 6530, 6891 and 6892 of 2003 passed by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the said writ petitions were dismissed, hence these petitions for leave to appeal. All the four petitions are being disposed of through this common judgment as common question of law and facts are involved.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were inducted as Management Trainee in Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) as per terms and conditions of appointment letter dated 20-11-1995, at page 39 of the concise statement filed by the respondents who completed training for fixed period of two years. Petitioners however received letter dated 6-3-1998 from the respondent/Company informing the petitioners that their contract for the period of two years has expired w.e.f. 28-2-1998 and the Company has no job for them. The petitioners were not given any appointment on expiry of their training period, therefore petitioner along with 57 others filed Writ Petition No.27701 of 1997 before the Lahore High Court, Lahore praying for their regularization and absorption with the respondent Company which writ petition, after hearing the parties, was dismissed on 29-11-1993 which is reported as Shamsul Arifin and others v. Government of Pakistan and others 1999 MLD 3446. Petitioner Shamsul Arifin and four others filed civil petitions and civil appeals before this Court which were also dismissed vide judgment reported in Muhammad Azam Suhail and others v. Government of Pakistan and others 1998 SCMR 1549. The petitioners again preferred Writ Petitions Nos.2532, 6530, 6891 and 6892 of 2003 before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, contending that the petitioners were not afforded opportunity to compete for induction nor the posts were advertised for recruitment as per observations of this Court in case reported as Muhammad Azam's case (supra). The said writ petitions were also dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, vide impugned judgment, against which the present petitions have been filed.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents who has appeared on Court notice and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners after having undergone training for two years became regular in service, therefore they were entitled to be absorbed by the respondent Company. Reliance has been placed upon decision of a larger Bench of this Court reported in Managing Director Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. v. Ghulam Abbas PLD 2003 SC

724. Learned counsel submitted that on the principle laid down by the larger Bench of this Court, the earlier judgment of this Court and High Court stood annulled therefore the petitioners were not to apply for the post on advertisement and compete with other candidates who applied for the said posts.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners in the earlier round of litigation had prayed for same relief of regularization and absorption with the respondent Company through writ petition No.27701 of 1947 but the said writ petition was dismissed vide judgment in the case of Shamsal Arifin (supra) against which civil petitions/appeals were filed before this Court but the same were also dismissed vide judgment in the case of Muhammad Azam Sohail (supra), therefore the petitioners before this Court in subsequent round of litigation cannot be permitted in law to again agitate for the same relief. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the terms of appointment with regard to Management. Training Scheme of which terms and conditions were approved in 236th Board of Directors Meeting held on 2-10-1994 wherein it was resolved that management trainee would be inducted at any one time as management trainees in various departments which training would be for maximum period of two years not extendable under any circumstances and during the training period the trainee would be paid stipend of Rs.6,000 per month and on completion of the training period the Company would not be under any obligation whatsoever to retain or absorb any of the trainee in its permanent establishment, therefore the petitioners as per terms of the contract under Management Training Scheme were not entitled to be absorbed or appointed by the respondent/company. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that case set up in the writ petition before the Lahore High Court was quite different while before this Court a new case has been set up on the ground 'that the petitioners on expiry of training period stood regularized consequently be absorbed/appointed against the post.

6. We do not find substance and merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, while find force and merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents.

7. Admittedly the case set up by the petitioners in writ petition was quite different wherein they had challenged that they were not allowed to compete and further that no advertisement with regard to. the posts created by the respondent-Company was made whereas before us learned counsel for the petitioners contended that on expiry of training period the petitioners became regular and therefore they were to be absorbed or appointed against posts placing his reliance upon the decision of the larger Bench cited above. The petitioners cannot be permitted to plead different case then what they pleaded before the High Court. Their case was different in the writ petitions than what has been canvassed before us. The petitioners in the first round of litigation had prayed that they be absorbed/appointed but the said prayer was declined by the High Court as stated above and the same judgment of the High Court was affirmed by this Court as mentioned above. Petitioners having pursued their remedy before the High Court and this Court for the grievance of their appointment on the expiry of their training period were denied said relief sought for by the High Court and affirmed by this Court, consequently petitioners cannot be permitted under law to come again with the same prayer before this Court on some other pretext by concealing and suppressing the earlier litigation having gone between the parties. Besides it may be observed that petitioners had conceded to undergo training for two years against fixed stipend with no guarantee or undertaking from the respondents Company for their absorption or appointment, therefore cannot now agitate the said plea that they be absorbed and appointed considering also the fact that earlier also they were declined such relief. The judgment of larger Bench of this Court supra in the circumstances is also of no assistance to the petitioners case considering also that the facts of the said judgment were quite different and distinguishable to the facts of the instant case and further that larger Bench decision was in respect of Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. while the instant case of the petitioners being against the Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. wherein appointment letters issued to the petitioners under management training scheme were with specific terms giving them no undertaking for their regularization in the job or their absorption in the service.

8. In the circumstances, we find no merit in these petitions, therefore, leave to appeal is declined and the petitions are dismissed. M.H./M-102/SC????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.