DECISION ' Applicant, Mohammad Younus, a Senior Clerk in the Pakistan Jpdustrial Development corporation, the respondents here in has field an application under section 53, I.R.O., for the interpretation of the following provision in the Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between the representatives of the Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation and the representative of its staff union, on 11th June, 1980 :- "Graduation Allowance.-It is agreed to allow one special increment to the workers who have passed B.A./B.Sc. Examination during the service as is being paid to the employees who have passed B.Com, LL.B./ M. Com".
2. It has been urged by Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi, the learned counsel for the appellant, that under the aforesaid provision of the settlement, every employee of the P.I.D.C., who had passed the examination referred to in the said provision, during his service, whether the examination was passed before or after the coming into force of the settlement, was entitled to Graduation Allowance/Special Increments, but the respondents were restricting the application of this benefit to only those employees who had passed the requisite examination after the date of the settlement and later on to those employees who had passed the examination on or after 1st March, 1974. As the provision in the settlement does not specifically provide whether the payment of the Graduation Allowance will be admissible to employees on the passing of the examination after the execution of the settlement or from any earlier date, there is some ambiguity in this provision and on account of this ambiguity the applicant has come up to this Tribunal for interpreting the same.
Now in case of an ambiguity in a document, it is permissible to refer to extrinsic evidence. In the case of Pakistan Tobacco Co. v. Pak. Cigarette Labour Union and another (1), a Division Bench of the Karachi High Court agreed that the view taken by the learned Judge that the Court was entitled to examine evidence in order to determine the nature of the bonus paid or payable under the settlement was correct and observed as follows :- "It is settled law that an ambiguity or doubt in a written document can be resolved by reference to extrinsic evidence. The expression bonus immediately conjures upon one's mind the concept of a share in profits. The extrinsic evidence relied upon by Sardar Ikramullah, the learned Legal Adviser of the P.I.D.C., is the letter, dated 30th December. 1980, according to which it was agreed between the parties that the Graduation Allowance would be payable to those who had passed the requisite examination on or after 1st March, 1974. This agreement has not only been signed by the General Manager of the P.I.D.C. But also by the President, General Secretary and the Vice-President of the employees union, which is the C.B.A. In the respondent establishment. The provision relating to Graduation Allowance of the settlement was, thus, clarified and the ambiguity removed by subsequent agreement between the original parties to the settlement. According to subsection
(12) of section 22 the collective bargaining agent is entitled to undertake collective bargaining with the employer on matters connected with the employment and the terms of employment of the workmen. This agreement, thus, will be binding on all the employees in the respondent establishment, who are workmen for the purposes of the I.R.O. It was. However, argued by Mr. Syed Ashraf Hussain Rizvi that this later {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1977 Kar, $79 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' agreement is contrary to the provisions of clause (a) of subsection (12) of section 25-A, I.R.O., which prohibits a C.B.A. From entering into an agreement relating to the enforcement of rights of workman guaranteed under the law or a settlement. If the settlement had in fact guaranteed the right of the applicant to the grant of the Graduation Allowance, irrespective of the date when he passed the qualifying examination, the contention of Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi would have had force.
However, as the provision in this behalf was ambiguous and as there was no agreement between the parties in this behalf the matter was settled by the subsequent agreement, dated 30th December, 1980. This agreement, as already pointed out, would be binding upon all the employees in the respondent establishment who are workers for the purposes of the I.R.O.
3. The upshot of the above discussion is that I am of the view that the Graduation Allowance under the settlement, dated 11th June, 1980, would be paid to such workers in the respondent establishment. As have passed the requisite examination after 1st March, 1979, in view of the agreement, dated 30th December, 1980.