' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.--- With the consent of learned counsel this Constitutional Petition was finally heard at Katcha Peshi stage and is being decided accordingly.
2. It is stated in the petition that fathers of the petitioners were ecruited by respondent No,1 as Dock Worker to work for loading and unloading of ships. Provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 are applicable to the respondent No,1 and the workmen employed by it. It is stated that fathers of the petitioner have retired from service. Learned counsel referred to the following from the Memorandum of Settlement of 1987 (Translated from Urdu):--- Demand No,l.
' A pension be fixed for every Dock Worker.
Settlement: Agreed that instead of pension scheme a real son of a Dock Worker shall be registered as Dock Worker provided the Dock ' Worker retires upon attaining age of 60 years or a medical board declares him unfit according to law or during service, the Dock Worker dies during course of employment or for any other cause. However, this shall not be applicable to the workers dismissed for misconduct or who resign from service on their own.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the CBA has no right to modify this settlement. Learned counsel further submitted that children of other Dock Workers have been employed and in this connection he referred to certain persons.
4. Chaudhry Muhammad Ashraf Khan, submitted that in the Memorandum of Settlement of 2000 the following was agreed (Translated from Urdu):--- Demand No,27 In case of retirement if Dock Worker does not want his son to be recruited, he be paid Rs,150,000 in lieu of son quota. Demand No, 74.
During service if a worker instead of getting a son employed wants to take money, the condition of service be abolished. Agreement:- ' This demand (Demand No,27) was considered with Demand No,
74. Agreed that in lieu of getting employment for a son, a dock worker shall be paid Rupees 1,00,000 instead of Rs,60,000 without any condition as to length of service. Learned counsel submitted that this amount of Rs,1,00,000 has now been increased to Rs,2,00,000 and in agreement of 2009 Union demanded that the amount be increased Rs,3,00,000 but it was not accepted.
5. Learned counsel submitted that the settlement of 1987 has lapsed and has been modified.
Regarding statement by the learned counsel for petitioner that sons of some dockworkers have been recruited, learned counsel referred to para (C) of the comments, which is as under:--- "During negotiation the CBA pleaded the case of 23 minor sons of dock Workers who were interviewed and approved for registration prior to imposition of ban on son registration and they were directed to report for enrollment after attaining the age of 18 years ago but they have been denied enrollment due to ban on Sons Registration, despite of the fact that Sons Registration Committee had issued them letter of registration with direction to report for enrollment after attaining age of 18 yeaRs, It was agreed that these 18 sons would be registered in Register-11 in lieu of the letters of registration held by them subject to following conditions:--- No claim will be filed by them retrospective benefits. CBA will not treat this facility as precedent of any kind of son's registration. The sons claiming benefits under this settlement will not have availed earlier monetary compensation in lieu of son's registration."
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
7. The key contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that benefit once given under a particular settlement cannot be taken away or reduced to the disadvantage of a workman. We have not been able to persuade ourselves to agree with the contention of the learned counsel. A' memo. Of settlement is a bilateral document between a Collective Bargaining Agent representing all the workmen employed in the establishment at the one hand and the employer on the other hand and in terms of section 56 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 is binding on all the workmen.
A settlement is defined in section 2(xxv) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 in the following words:- - "2(xxv) "Settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings, and includes an agreement between the employer and his workmen arrived at other than in the course of conciliation proceedings, where such agreement is in writing, has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to the Provincial Government, the conciliator and such other person as may be prescribed:"
8. Section 56(1)(d) provide as under:- "56(1)(d): where a collective bargaining agent is one of the parties to the dispute, be binding on all workmen who were employed in the establishment or industry to which the industrial dispute relates on the date on which the dispute first arose or who were employed therein after that date."
9. Thus, a settlement is an agreement between all the workmen who are represented by the CBA in terms of section 25(13) (a) of the I.R.A.) on the one hand and the employer on the other hand. The Statute has given protection to the settlement so that though it is a private agreement but its enforcement has been provided through elaborate mechanism laid down in the law. In private agreements between the parties under Civil Law remedy is normally suit for damages or specific performance in certain cases. But case of a settlement which is also an agreement between the parties, the Legislature in its wisdom has first made it binding not only on the employer but also on heirs, successors or assignees of the employer and the workmen: not only the present but also the future workmen. Law also provides for penal consequences if a settlement is violated by any of the parties. It also provides mechanism under section 69 of the I.R.A. For interpretation of a settlement if difficulty or doubt arises. All such conditions and bulwarks, abutted around a settlement notwithstanding, a settlement is still what it is an agreement between the parties. Therefore it is always available to the CBA and the employer, through a subsequent settlement, to modify any of the terms of settlement between the parties agreed in their previous settlements. This is eminently logical from every angle. Because the industry and the commercial establishments operate in commercial environment and commercial environment constantly change. Therefore, Legislature in its wisdom left to the CBA and the employer to sit down and negotiate the terms and condition of employment. They have been granted freedom to settle subject of course to what has been laid down as a minimum by the law and then the law also provided for a period for settlement.
Therefore, contention of Mr. Abdul Ghaffar that subsequent settlement could not have modified the previous settlement is without substance.
10. In the present case, the subsequent settlement i,e, 2000 modified the settlement of 1987. Though in the demand it was stated that option be available with the dockworker "{{URDU TEXT}} but while agreeing it was agreed that in lieu of the right of getting a son employed a worker shall be paid amount which initially was Rs,60,000 and has been since then increased in subsequent settlements. Consequently, it is held that with subsequent settlements a retired dockworker did have any other right to get his son registered as a dockworker.
11. Mr. Abdul Ghaffar submitted that some children of dockworkers have been recruited. Mr. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Khan referred to Clause(c) quoted above. A bare reading of the above quotation indicates that the case of those persons was clearly distinguishable.
12. Mr. Abdul Ghaffar submitted that the petitioners have not been made payment which was to have been paid to them in lieu of a son employed. Mr. Ashraf Khan disputed this position. This being a question of fact cannot be decided in Constitutional Petition. Nevertheless, if the amount has not been paid to any of the petitioners, the same shall be tendered to them through cross-cheque within a period of one month of the date of this judgment.
13. Result of the above discussion is that these Constitutional petitions are dismissed in limine.