JUDGMENT :

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. Leave granted. These appeals have been preferred by the Plaintiff(s) - Appellant(s) against the common judgment and decree dated 2nd August, 2011 passed in RSA No. 3127 of 2003 and RSA No. 5214 of 2003, etc. By the impugned common judgment, the Second Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree, passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court.

2. The Plaintiffs-Appellants were appointed in the services of the Respondent-National Fertilizers Ltd. The Appellant-Balwinder Singh was appointed as Junior Steno Clerk on 3rd April, 1991. The other Appellant-Ram Swaroop was appointed as a Field Assistant on 27th April, 1991. The Plaintiff-Appellant, Balwinder Singh filed a suit against the Defendant-Respondent on 16th August, 1999 for declaration that he is entitled to be confirmed as Junior Steno Clerk w.e.f. 8th September, 1991 i.e. the date on which he has successfully completed the probation period of six months and mandatory injunction to the effect that he is entitled to increment, bonus, medical allowance, house rent etc.

3. A separate suit was filed by the Plaintiff-Appellant, Ram Swaroop, against the Defendant-Respondent for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to get salary in the pay scale of Junior Field Assistant plus usual allowance, and that the action of the Defendant in making the payment of Rs. 1800/- per month is illegal, null and void and is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned Civil Judge, Sirsa, Haryana after appreciating the facts and circumstances and evidence on record allowed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff-Appellant, Balwinder Singh by judgment and decree dated 12th December, 2000 in Suit No. 359-C of 1999. An appeal preferred by the Defendant-Respondent against the said judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge was dismissed by the Addl. District Judge, Sirsa, Haryana by judgment and decree dated 7th April, 2003 in Civil Appeal No. 21/2001.

Similarly, the suit preferred by the Appellant-Ram Swaroop was allowed and decreed in his favour by judgment and decree dated 3rd September, 2001 passed in Civil Suit No. 1267/1997. The appeal against the said judgment and decree preferred by the Defendant-Respondent was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 7th August, 2003, passed in Civil Appeal No. 94/9.10.2001/ 29.10.2002.

5. Both the aforesaid judgments and decrees, passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court were challenged by the Defendant-Respondent before the High Court in RSA No. 3127 of 2003 and RSA No. 5646 of 2003 respectively. Similar judgment(s) and decree passed in case of other employees were also challenged by filing separate RSAs. All the aforesaid RSAs were heard together and by the common judgment dated 2nd August, 2011, the High Court allowed the Second Appeals preferred by the Defendant-Respondent, setting aside the judgment and decree which were passed in favour of the Plaintiffs-Appellants. Some directions were issued in the connected second appeals.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellants have challenged the common judgment only on the ground that the High Court reversed the finding of the subordinate courts without framing any substantial question of law. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the High Court decided the Second Appeals in favour of the Defendants Respondent after framing substantial question of law.

7. We have noticed the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the records.

8. From the impugned judgment, we find that the learned Judge though allowed different appeals has not referred to any substantial question of law, if any that was framed at the time of the admission of the appeals or at the time of hearing.

9. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied upon the order sheets of the second appeals and has referred to the memo. of appeals to suggest that substantial question of law was framed at the time of admission of the second appeals. It is de