Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. LHR‑381 of 1981, decided on 16th January, 1983.
‑‑ Promotion‑Not a right‑Cannot be claimed on basis of super seded rules‑Road Transport Corporation rules not providing any educational qualifications for promotion of Foreman as Assistant Works Manager‑Such rules superseded and new rules framed requiring qualification of matriculation for such promotion‑Foreman nether promoted nor his promotion case pending prior to framing of rules, held, could not claim promotion on basis of old rules Grievance petition claiming promotion without possessing requisite qualifications after promulgation of new rules, in circumstances, held, rightly rejected by Labour Court‑Industrial Relations Ordi nance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 37‑[P L D 1973 Lab. 114 and P L D 1973 Lab. 372 held not applicable].
Shafig‑ul‑Islam for Appellant.
Asghar Mahmood for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 1st December, 1982.
This appeal arises from the decision dated 4th June, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his promotion as Assistant Works Manager was dismissed.
2. The appellant is a Foreman and is under‑Matric. He was appoin ted under the rules of 1959 wherein there is no condition of some parti cular qualification for the post of Assistant Works Manager. In 1976 new rules were framed superseding the rules of 1959. Quota of departmental promotion was raised from 25% to 30%. 20 % vacancies are to be filied in from ex‑cadre. If no suitable candidate is available, the vacancies are to be filled in from the category of Foreman. Thus raising the quota to 50%, the remaining 50% vacancies are to be filled in by direct recruitment. Educational qualification for filling in the vacancies of the posts of Assis tant Works Manager from the category of Foreman was fixed as at least Matriculate with two years standing as Foreman. Since the appellant is not Matriculate, he was ignored.
3. It has been argued that since the appellant was employed under the rules of 1959, he is not governed by the rules of 1976 and since in the rules of 1959 there was no condition of any particular educational quali fication, he is eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Works Manager. I do not find much force in the argument. Firstly, promotion is not a right and secondly a right secured under a rule cannot be claimed since before the super session of the rules of 1959 the appellant was not promoted as Assistant Works Manager. No retrospective effect has been given to the rules of 1976, so the persons who have already been promoted as Assistant Works Manager and are not Matriculate, they cannot be reverted but fresh vacancies are to be filled in according to the riles of 1976. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited P L D 1973 Lab. 114 and P L D 1973 Lab. 372 but they are not help to the appellant. They deal with pending cases. It has been observed that pending cases are to be governed by the old law. No question of pending proceedings is involved in this case.
4. As a result of the observations made above, I find no force in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed.
A. E. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer