DECISION This is an application under section 50,
1. R. O., by the Metropolitan Steel Corporation Workers' Union, requesting for interpretation of this Tribunal as to the date from which the settlement arrived at on 6th March, 1982, between the Metropolitan Steel Corporation Limited and the Metropolitan Steel Corporation Workers' Union, -is to be deemed to have become effective. A difficulty or a doubt in this behalf is said to have arisen on account of the Office Memorandum No. F. 2 (3)-R. 5/82, dated the 17th of June, 1982, of the Finance Division of the Government of Pakistan providing that in the case of employees who are governed by the provisions of the 1. R. O., 1969, the Dearness Allowance under the said O. M. Shall be subject to the condition that the period of at least one year has elapsed from the date of effectiveness of the agreement or settlement which has been arrived at with the C. B. A. It is the case of the applicant-Union that the date of effectiveness of the settle-- ment arrived at on 6th March, 1982, is 1st July, 1981, while the case of the respondent-Corporation is that the date of effectiveness of the said settle--ment is 6th March, 1982, when it was signed by the parties.
2. I have heard Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned counsel for the applicant---Union, and Mr. S. M. Yaqoob, who appeared for the respondent-Corpora--tion. I have been taken by them through the various provisions of the settlement dated 6th March, 1982, and the benefits conferred under the said settlement have been compared with the benefits granted under the previous settlements which stood terminated/cancelled by the settlement of 6th March, 1982. It appears that the settlement in question, which is in considerable detail and deals with a very large number of benefits, incorporates the benefits conferred or granted under the previous settle--ments which settlements have been specifically terminated/cancelled by the said settlement and further either enlarges the scope or the size of the benefits granted under the previous settlements or confers entirely new benefits. The date/dates from which the various benefits under the settlement in question have been made effective have been laid down in clause 30 (i) of the settlement which reads as under :- "The benefits of this agreement shall be effective from -the date of signing this agreement except the benefit under clauses 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19, 20, 21, 23 (c), 25, 26 and 27 (n), which shall be allowed with effect from 1st July, 1981."
3. A bare perusal of the above clause makes it clear that whereas the benefits under the specified clauses are to be allowed with effect from 1st July, 1981, the benefits under the remaining clauses of the settlement are to be effective from the date of the signing of the agreement, i.e. 6th March, 1982. Thus, the date of effectiveness of the settlement as regards the specified clauses is 1st July, 1981 while the date of the effectiveness of the remaining clauses is 60 March, 1982, The effect would, thus, appear to be as if the settlement were in two parts or there were in fact two settlements. One being made effective from 1st July, 1981 and the other from 6th March, 1982. A settlement or agreement which is partly effective from one date and partly effective from another date is not a novel feature of the present settlement but such settlements are quite frequent and the parties may agree that some benefits should acrue from an earlier date while the other may become effective from a later date, Even in the case of Statute, a part of the Statute may have prospective effect while another part, ay be given retrospective affect. It was sought to be argued by . Mr. Ali Amjad that at least for the purposes of section 40, I. R. O. - a settlement should be deemed to be a composite whole and the date .From which 'it is to be deemed to be effective should be determined accordingly. I am inclined to the view that even if the contention of the learned counsel is correct, the ,term settlement, as used in section 40, I. R. O. Must be limited to settlements in respect of a single matter but where a document refers to different matters or deals with different benefits, the date from which the benefits are to become effective being different, then in fact there would be separate settlements and the date of effectiveness of each one of them would be different. In the instant case, as already pointed out, one part of the settlement is made effective from the date of signing of the settlement i.e. 6th March, 1982, while the remaining part is made effective from 1st July, 1981
4. I am conscious of the fact that the view that I have taken does not resolve the real difference between the parties which is whether under the Office Memorandum referred to above the employees of- the respon--dent-Corporation are entitled to the benefits conferred by the said O.
M., but since this difference of opinion is in respect of the interpretation of the O. M. And not of the interpretation .Of any term of the settlement in question, I am of the view it would be beyond the scope of section 50, I. R. O., to interpret the O. M. In question or its real intention. All that can be said is that a material part of the benefits under the settlement have been given retrospective effect from Ist July, 1981.