2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Muhammad Muzaffarul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th July, 2002. SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.‑‑‑Petitioners seek leave to appeal against a common judgment, dated 17‑5‑2002 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) passed in Appeals Nos. 646, 647, 649, 749 and 750(K)(CE) of 2000, whereby their appeals were dismissed being time‑barred.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners, namely, Mehrullah and Anwar Hussain were appointed as Trainee Engineers on 19‑9‑1995 and 27‑9‑1995, respectively, .on temporary basis for working on some new projects and further for temporary requirement, of the respondent Company. Subsequently, their temporary assignments were discontinued through letter, dated 10‑3‑1999. Petitioners being aggrieved with their termination order, preferred departmental appeals, but the same remained un responded. Thereafter, they filed the appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and carefully scanning the record, dismissed their appeals as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, this petition.

3. Mr. Muhammad Muzaffarul Haque, learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contended that the petitioner's services were terminated without issuing Show‑Cause. Notice to them and that their services were not required by the respondent‑Company. Admittedly, the appeals were barred by time, but the Tribunal under the circumstances should have condoned the delay in the interest of justice and that the petitions may be accepted.

4. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and have carefully examined the available record. Admittedly, the petitioners departmental appeals were dismissed on 6‑4‑1999. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Tribunal on 14‑11‑2000 which show that the same were filed after the delay of about 453 days. No plausible explanation whatsoever has been mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. The appointments of the petitioners were temporary in nature. The Tribunal, after considering the application of condonation of delay and averments of the petitioners and hearing the parties with sound, cogent and legal grounds dismissed their appeals being hopelessly time‑barred.

5. The impugned judgment, in our considered opinion, is based on the law laid down by this Court. Furthermore, there is no illegality, irregularity, misreading, or non‑reading of material available on record. The question of general public importance as contemplated under Article 212(3) of the Constitution is also not involved.

6. For the facts, circumstances and reasons mentioned hereinabove, we are of the considered view, that the petitions are without merit and substance, which are hereby dismissed and leave to appeal is declined. S.A.K./M‑19/S Leave refused.