DECISION This is an application made by the Union under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for interpretation of the settlement dated 3rd January, 1974.
2. The respondent is Volkart (Pakistan) Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies' Act, having its registered office at Karachi and some branches in Pakistan.
3. The parties had been making settlements with regard to the terms and conditions of service from time to time. The last settlement took place on 25th September, 1971 and it expired on 30th September, 1973. Consequ--ently, a formal letter dated 25th September, 1973 was sent by the Union terminating the settlement. A notice under section 26 (i) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, raising 11 demands was sent by the Union on 15th November, 1973. The charter of demands dated 31st December 1973 was also sent to the respondent. The Demand No. I which is relevant for the purpose of this case reads as under :- "Increase in the Salaries It is an open fact that the prices of all essential commodities of life have gone up so unchecked that they have broken up all time previous records owing to devaluation of Pakistan Rupee ; and adverse economic conditions prevailing in the country, the life of wage earners has become very miserable. Having noted that this increase is not at all .Either as a result of increase in wages of workers or low production, and is practically beyond anyone's control. In this regard we would like to mention that the price Index for 1969, 1971 (already with the Management) and 1973 will show gradual increase in prices and at this stage the increase in prices is 61 %. Therefore, Stall' Union has no resort but to demand an increase of 60 % be made in the wages of the workers."
4. Subsequently, a settlement was reached increasing the salary and granting some other facilities.
On 3rd January, 1974 the settlement was signed by the parties.
5. Subsequently, Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Amendment Act No. XLVII of 1974 was passed by the Parliament and received the assent of the President on 7th September, 1974, whereby Cost of Living Allowance at the rate of Rs. 50 p. m. Or 10 % of the monthly wages whichever is more if the wages of the workman do riot exceed Rs. 1,000. On the basis of this enactment the Union demanded the Cost of Living Allowance but the Management declined on the ground that the increase in wages was on account of the increase in the cost of living, and, therefore, according to the Enactment the same was to be adjusted. The position taken by the Management was not accepted by the Union and, therefore, they made the present application.
6. Before I proceed to consider pleas advanced by the parties, I would like to reproduce section 5 of the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Amendment Act, 1974, which reads as under :-
8. Saving of certain rights sand privileges.-Nothing in this Act shall affect any right or privilege to which an employee was entitled,-
(a) in the case of the cost of living allawance payable under sub--section (1) of section 3, immediately before the commencement of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Ordinance, 1972 (XXII of 1973), or
(b) in the case of the cost of living allowance payable under sub--section (2) of section 3, immediately before the commencement of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) (Amendment)
Act, 1974, under any law for the time being in force or under any award, decision, agreement, settlement, contract, custom or usage in force immediately before such commencement Provided that, if at any time commencing on or after the first day of August, 1973, but preceding the commencement of the said Ordinance or as the case may be, commencing at or after the commencement of the said Ordinance but preceding the commencement of the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) (Amendment) Act, 1974, any employer has paid, or become liable to pay, whether by virtue of an award, decision, agreement, settlement, contract, custom or usage, to any employee, in respect of any period, any sum of money, which is intended to provide relief due to a rise in the cost of living, such employer shall not be required to pay to such employee in respect of such period any amount in excess of the difference, if any, between the amount so paid by him or the amount which he has so become liable to pay, and the cost of living allowance payable to such employee.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this proviso, any increase in wages accruing by virtue of the usual annual increment or promotion to a higher grade, or an allowance not specifically given to provide relief due to a rise in the cost of living, shall not be deemed to be an increase intendend to provide relief due to a rise in the cost of living."
By reading this section it is plain enough that according to the proviso any sum of money which has been paid or is payable and is intended to provide relief due to rise in the cost of living, shall be adjusted. It therefore, follows that it is necessary that there should be an intention to provide the relief due to rise in the cast of living. Then comes explanation which excludes the usual annual increment or promotion to a higher grade or an allowance not specifically given to provide relief due to rise in the cost of living from considering a relief for the purpose of adjustment ; in other words such a relief cannot be adjusted by the Management. Thus a clear distinction has been laid down between the increase in wages and increase in the allowance. So far the increase in wages is concerned, there must be an intention to provide the relief due to a rise in the cost of living, though not specifically provided as such in the award, decision, agreement, settlement, contract, custom or usage. However, the position with regard to the increase in allowance is quite different as it is not the mere intention to determine whether the increase was allowed as a result of the rise in the cost of living but it must be specifically stated so in order to allow the Management to adjust the same against the relief granted by the Cost of Living (Relief) Act. This distinction is very pertinent and cannot be ignored in interpreting the settlement or other documents.
7. On perusal of record and hearing of the arguments, I am of the view that this reference is misconceived. It is not a mere question of interpretation of the document embodying the terms of settlement but the dispute centres round the intention of the parties as to the object for which the benefits had been allowed. There is absolutely no indication of any kind in the document of settlement. So in order to settle the question of the intention-.Reliance has been placed upon certain other documents including the affidavits besides the dialogue between the parties for reaching the settlement.
8. Thus, it is not a pure question of the interpretation of the document of settlement but it is a disputed question of fact as to intention of the parties. This can be resolved only on the basis of the evidence extraneous to the aforesaid document of settlement. To decide the rights and obligations of the parties on the basis of evidence is hardly the case falling under section 50 of Industrial Relations Ordinance. It is not the function of this Tribunal to examine evidence in order to find out the intention. This can be properly adjudicated by the Labour Court under section 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance. The Union may, therefore, approach the Labour Court having jurisdiction, if so advised, to seek the redress.
9. In the circumstances the reference is rejected.