' The appeal captioned above challenges the correctness of the decision dated 4th March, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore.
2. The appellant as well as respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were conductors. The appellants on account of being Matriculate were promoted as time-checker on 4th June, 1981. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 challenged the order before the learned lower Court in a petition under section. 25-A of the Indusrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which was accepted and hence this appeal.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the Rules of 1959 there was no mention of the post of time-checker, whereas in the Rules of 1976 it was mentioned and minimum qualification for it was fixed as Matric, and that since the appellant were Matric, so they were rightly promoted as time-checker. No copy of rules of 1959 and of 1976 has been brought on the record but the learned counsel for respondent No, 2 admits these facts. None has appeared for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to contest the appeal. Since before the promotion of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, rules of 1976 had been promulgated, it cannot be said that by promoting the appellants, retrospective effect was given to the said rules. If the appellants had been promoted before 1976 Rules came into existence, of course, they could have been reverted being junior to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Since at the time the question of promotion cropped up, the rules of 1976 were existing, the promotions were to be made according to the said rules. As the appellants were Matriculate, they, therefore, were rightly promoted. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 should have, after the promulgation of the rules of 1976. Improved their qualifications. Learned lower Court has made reference to the promotion of Abdul Aziz and Muhammad Afzal which took place in 1969. Before the rules of 1976 came into existence, the old rules of 1959 were prevailing, so before 1976 promotions had to be made according to the old rules. Reference has been made to a settlement of 1969 also, according to which, promotions are to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. Since in 1959 rules there was no restriction of qualifications. Settlement of 1969 does not say that if for a particular post, there is a condition of some educational qualification, it will be ignored or such a rule shall not be framed or it would not be effective. Rather the settlement includes the condition of educational qualification inasmuch as it says that promotion will be according to seniority-cum- fitness. An unqualified person cannot be said to be fit for promotion. So restriction of educational qualification cannot be ignored. The appellants being Matriculate were rightly promoted and respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who admittedly, were non-matric were rightly ignored.
4. As a result of what has been observed above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, restore the order of promotion passed in favour of the appellants by respondent No,
3. However, since respondents Nos. 1 and 2 got promotion under the order of the Court, respondent No, 3 cannot be burdened to pay benefits twice. So the appellants are not allowed monitory benefits, except the inclusion of the amount of increments, if any, in their future pay.