' A difference of opinion having arisen between the Fauji Sugar Mills Employee's Union, the applicants herein, and the Fauji Sugar Mills Ltd., the respondents herein, in respect of certain provisions of the settlement reached between the parties on 20th September, 1979 the applicant Union has referred the matter to this Tribunal under section 50, I. R.
0., for the interpretation of the disputed provisions of the settlement. These provisions relate to pay scales of workmen, grant of increments to them, hospitalization charges of workmen who are sick and providing charpies or grant of charpai allowance to workmen.
2. I have heard Mr. All Amjad, who appeared for the applicant Union, and Mr. P. M. Amer, the learned counsel for the respondent mills.
3. The first provision in the settlement in regard to which there is difference of opinion between the parties is in respect of ply scales. The settlement provides that the existing pay grades of all its employees excepting those in Grades A & B would be increased by Rs,
10. There is no ambiguity or difference of opinion on this point. There is, however, a difference of opinion in regard to the interpretation of sub-para (b) of this paragraph, which reads as follows :--- "(b) The Mill management has agreed to remove the disparities, if any, in the matter of pay drawn by staff in higher grades as compared to staff in lower grade."
' It was contended by Mr. Ali Amjad that disparties in the wages drawn by the employees of the respondent mills fall into 2 main categories, the first category being of the employees in a higher grade who draw less pay than more than 10 seasons, (iv) Employees having service of an employee in a lower grade who may even be having less service than the employees in the higher grade and the second category being of employees in the same grade, but with greater length of service than the employees drawing more wages in the same grade. Mr. Amer, while clarifying that the disparties in the matter of pay drawn by staff in a higher grade as compared with the staff in lower grade, had been removed in the case of workmen employed in the same or similar trade, contended that it was not the spirit of the settlement to remove such disparties where the employees were working or employed in different trades. I regret that I see no force in this contention. The wording of the settlement is quite clear and the provision in this behalf cannot be restricted in its application to workmen employed in the same or similar trades as sought to be contended by Mr. P. M. Amer. The clear and unambiguous wording of the sub-clause provides for the removal of disparities in the matter of pay drawn by the staff in the higher grades as compared with the stall' in the lower grades, irrespective of the fact whether they are employed in the same or different trades. It would certainly be a disparity if a person in a higher grade and with greater length of service draws or is given less pay than a person in a lower grade with a lesser length of service. It is not only a disparity but an anamoly which the settlement seeks to remove.
4. The next provision in the settlement regarding which there is difference of opinion relates to increments. The provision in the settlement in this behalf reads as follows :- "(ii) Increments :
(a) Permanent Employees.-The Mill management has agreed to grant increments to its permanent employees as per following formula which will be merged in their existing pay :-
(i) Employees having service of less than one year Nil
(ii) Employees having service of one year but less than 5 yearsRs.40
(iii) Employees having service of 5 years but less than 10 yearsRs.50
(iv) Employees having service, of more than 10 years. Rs.70
(b) Seasonal Employees.-The Mill management has also agreed to grant increment to seasonal employees as per following formula which will be merged in their existing pay :-
(i) Employees having service of less then one season Nil
(ii) Employees having service of one season but less than 5 seasonsRs.25
(iii) Employees having service of 5 seasons but less than 10 seasons.Rs.35
(iv) Employees having service of more than 10 seasons. Rs.45
5. It was urged by Mr. Ali Amjad that the above paragraph pro-vides for grant of increments according to the length of service of both permanent employees as well as seasonal employees.
He contended that in each case, the total length of service of the employee should be considered for the purposes of determining what amount of increment was admissible to him under the formula of this settlement. On the other hand, it was contended by Mr. P. M. Amir that for computing the length of service for the purposes of determining the amount of increment admissible to a workman, it was only the period of service put in by an employee as a permanent workman that has to be considered. In construing the provisions of a settlement, it is primarily the wording of the settlement which has to be considered. Only when there is ambiguity or the meaning of the provision is not clear is it permissible to refer to other evidence in this behalf. In the present case, I am inclined to the view that " the wording of the settlement is quite clear and provides for grant o increment to permanent employees as well as to seasonal employees depending upon their total length of service including the service, if any, put in by them as temporary employees. If the intention had been to count only the service of the employees put in by them from the data they became permanent, there would have been specific provision to that effect. However, there is no indication of such a restricted or qualified admissibility of increment.
6. The next point of difference between the parties relates to grant of medical facilities to the employees, but Mr. Ali Amjad very fairly conceded that he could not press this demand and accordingly-gave it up.
7, The last difference of opinion between the parties is in regard to the interpretation of the following paragraph in the settlement :- "The Mill management has agreed to provide one charpai to permanent single staff members while seasonal staff members will be paid Rs, 25 once in a season and they will arrange their own charpai,"
8. It was contended by Mr. Ali Amjad that the wording of the above provision is quite clear and provides that each permanent single staff member would be provided with a charpai while each seasonal employee would be paid Rs, 25 once in a season for arranging his own charpai. On the other hand, it was contended by Mr. P. M. Amer that the charpai and charpai allowance was intended to be provided and given only to those workers who were residing in the quarters of the mill. This intention may possibly have been in the mind of the management, but it certainly is not reflected in the settlement which clearly provided that a charpai would be given to every permanent single staff member, while every seasonal staff member, would be provided Rs, 25 for arranging his own charpai. There is no restriction that this facility would only be admissible to employees residing in the quarters of the mills as contended by Mr. P. M. Amer.
9. Mr. P. M. Amer also sought to argue that the present application was not maintainable as the applicant had failed to show that there was any employee who was aggrieved and who had not received the benefits provided under the settlement. The contention of Mr. P. M. Amer appears to be that unless there is an actual instance wherein the parties are in dispute, a reference to this Tribunal under section 50, I, R. Q. Cannot be made. The law, however, does not so provide.
According to section 50, if any difficulty or doubt arises as to the interpretation of any provision of an award or settlement, it could be referred to the Tribunal for interpretation. The doubt or difficulty may arise even before there is an actual case for which a particular benefit or benefits are stated by the Management not to be admissible to the workmen or any class of them. To give an example if there is a provision in the settlement regarding grant of medical facilities to the workmen, the question whether these facilities include the payment of hospitalization charges by the Management to ailing workmen, could arise before a workman is admitted to a hospital.
10. No further issue was canvassed or raised before this Tribunal by either learned counsel,