Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. FD‑649 of 1985, decided on 27th January, 1986.

‑‑‑Service rules could be amended for future‑‑Contention that once a rule beneficial to a class of workers made can neither be discontinued nor amended, repelled Amendment prospectively would not exceptionable.

Muhammad Akram for Appellant.

Balal Khan and Naveed Rasool for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 26th January, 1986.

The decision, dated 5‑11‑1985 recorded by learned Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The previous promotion policy of the respondent was that after working successfully for five years on a post the employee became entitled to the next higher grade if during that period they were not in routine promoted. This policy was rescinded on 13‑5‑1985. Thereafter the appellant brought a petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 seeking promotion. In the pendency of the said petition he made another petition from the decision of which this appeal has arisen. The claim of the appellant is that since a right had been vested in the employees to claim higher grade under the old policy the same could not be withdrawn to the detriment of the workers. Where a rule has been amended or it is to be considered whether any person has got any vested right under the old rules. If a right had been vested of course such a right cannot be taken away. The policy has been rescinded only for the further and no retrospective effect has been given to it. This being so neither the persons who have been given higher scale or to whom a right has accrued to get such a scale, cannot be adversely affected but the persons who have no vested right will be ignored by the new policy. This is not the case of the appellant that he had completed five years and had got a right to get new scale before the policy was rescinded. He, therefore, had no vested right and thus was not prejudiced by the decision of the policy. I do not find any force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that since in future the employees would not be able to get next higher grade by working satisfactorily for five years in the existing scale, therefore, a vested right has been snatched away on account of the policy. Rules can be amended or discontinued for the future and this argument is not acceptable that once a rule beneficial to a class of workers has been made, it can neither be discontinued nor amended. For the future it can be discontinued but not with retrospective effect. The learned lower Court, therefore, has rightly dismissed the grievance petition o the appellant.

3. As a result the appeal is dismissed.

A.E.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.