' These are 3 applications under section SO of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, seeking interpretation of a particular provision of the respective settlements arrived at between the Management and the workers as represented by the Collective Bargaining Agents, in the light of the provisions of Ordinance XXXII of 1980, hereinafter referred to as the Amending Ordinance, which came into force on 26th June, 1980 and added subsection (4) together with a proviso and explanation to section 3 of the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973, hereinafter to as the principal Act.
2. Application No, 621 of 1980 is by the United Woollen Mills Workers' Union and seeks interpretation of a settlement arrived at between tire-Union and the United Woollen Mills on 16th June, 1980.
However, according to the settlement, the benefits under the settlement accrued to the workers with effect from 1st July, 1979. It was contended by Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned counsel for the applicant Union that since the twin requirements for adjustment against the amount payable under a settlement, agreement, or award, as provided in the proviso to subsection (4) added to section 3 by the amending Ordinance are, firstly, that the settlement, agreement or award should be announced on or after 1st January, 1980, and secondly, that it should become effective on or after the said date or alternatively it should be announced and become effective within one year of the coming into force of the amending Ordinance, as held by this Tribunal in the case of Messrs Prince Glass Works Ltd. v. Prince Glass Workers' Union, decided on 27th August, 1980, the respondent establishment is not entitled to set off the amount granted under the Amending Ordinance against the amounts payable under the settlement in question. Mr. Zamirul Hassan, the learned Representative for the respondent-establishment, on the other hand, strongly contended that not only the settlement in question was announced or reached on 16th June, 1980 but that it also became effective from the said date. I regret that the contention of the learned representative is not well founded. The very first sentence in the first paragraph of the settlement reads as follows :- {{URDU TEXT}}
3. The above sentence is followed by 5 clauses giving the increases admissible to workmen with effect from 1st July, 1979. Similarly, the settlement makes provision for payment of increased bonus with effect from 1979. The concluding paragraph of the settlement is also important and makes it clear that the benefits under the settlement have been made effective from 1st July, 1979. The said paragraph reads as follows :- {{URDU TEXT}} 4, The word "effective" although used in the Amending Ordinance, has not been defined learn or in the Provincial Act. Accordingly, it has to be given its ordinary dictionary meanings. It has been defined in Dellentine's Law Dictionary, as "in force in effect". The same term has been defined in Webster's Third New International Dictionary, page 724, as "taking effect, valid operative (the following resignations were accepted effective during the academic year under reviewed s. s. Conant) (the order was effective as of Tune 7)". It is thus clear that the more "effective" refers to the time, date or period from which a particular instrument or order comes into operation, whether prospectively, o retrospectively or immediately upon execution. In the instant case, the various provisions of the settlement in question which have been referred to clearly indicate that although it was arrived at on 16th June, 1980, it was made effective retrospectively from 1st July, 1979.
Consequently, relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Prince Glass Works Ltd. I hold that the respondent establishment is not entitled to adjust the cost of Living Allowance payable under the Amending Ordinance against the amount payable to the workmen under the settlement, dated 16th June, 1980.
5. I next take up Application No, 725 of 1980, which is by Razzaq Steel Mills and seeks interpretation of the memorandum of settlement arrived at by the applicant establishment with the C. B. A. On 20th January, 1980. This settlement also, like the settlement in the ease of United Woollen Mills, Karachi, though it was arrived at between the parties on 20th January, 1980 was given retrospective effect from 1st November, 1979 as appears from clause (6) of the Settlement, which reads as follows :- "(6) The above settlement has been made in full and final settlement of Charter of Demands dated 26th November, 1979. All such benefits shall be payable from 1st November, 1979 (1st November, 1979). The settlement shall remain in force for a period of two years up to 26th November, 1981."
6. On the basis of the reasoning given in the case of United Woollen Mills, I would hold that as the settlement became effective from 1st November, 1979 it only fulfills one of the essential conditions for the application of the proviso to subsection (4) of section 3 of the principal' Act but not the other condition, and consequently, the applicant establishment is not entitled to set off the Cost of Living Allowance payable under the Amending Ordinance against the amount payable to the work man under the settlement in question.
7. The last application in this behalf is Application No, 788/80 by Pak. Cigarette Labour Union. It seeks interpretation of settlement arrived at between the Union and the respondent establishment on 25th May, 1980. This settlement is based on a charter of Demands which was served upon the respondent establishment on 2nd December, 1979. Although the settlement in question was reached and signed by the parties on 25th May, 1980 almost the monetary benefits under the settlement in question have been made effective from 1st December' 1979 the only execution being in regard to the rate of contribution of the company to the Provident Fund, the supply of uniforms, the grant of Bhatta to watch I ward staff, the grant of annual bonus the charge. In the smoking allowances and annual leave, the grant of sick leave, the reclassification of the mien, and rationalization of the establishment, which should appear not to be in any way connected with Of related to the Cost of Living Allowance. As such, in this case also, I take the view that the respondent establishment is not untitled to set off the Cost of Living c Allowance admissible to the workmen under the Amending Ordinance against the monetary benefits granted under the settlement, dated 25th May 1980.