DECISION This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Third Labour Court, made on 20th April, 1982, allowing the application made by the respondent union under section 34,
1. R. O., and directing the appellant --Company to pay to its workers Rs. 40 per month as C. L. A. In accordance with the provisions of subsection (5) of section 3 of the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973 as added by Ordinance XXV of 1981.
2. The case of the respondent union before the learned Labour Court was that the appellant- Company, in violation of the provisions of the afore--said law, had failed to pay cost of living allowance of Rs. 40 per month to its employees. The application was resisted by the appellant- Company on the ground that by the settlement arrived at between the parties on 13th July, 1981 with effect from 1st January, 1981, special increases in the basic wages of all the workmen to the extent of Rs. 45 per month per work--man and an increase of Rs. 20 per month in the conveyance allowance pay--able to each workman were made and that the company was entitled to set of the cost of living allowance of Its. 40 against these increases in the wages and allowance of workmen, which increase, it was claimed, were on account of increase in the cost of Jiving. The learned Labour Court repel--led the contention of the appellant-Company and has held that there was neither documentary nor oral evidence in support of the contentions of the company that the increase in wages and conveyance allowance was due to rise in cost of living. In support of the view taken by it, the learned Labour Court relied upon clause (4) of the settlement which provides that the employees will continue to get all the rights and benefits which they were getting in the past and in future they will be entitled to all rights and been tits announced by the Government from time to time.
3. It was contended by Mr. Abid Hameed Puri, the learned counsel for the appellant-Company, that the learned Labour Court has based its finding on the interpretation of the settlement and as there are doubts and difficulties in the interpretation of the settlement, the company claiming that the increase in wages and conveyance allowance was given on account of rise in the cost of living while the stand of !He workers union was that it was given on account of the circumstances which have been detailed in para. 7 of its affidavit before the learned Labour Court, the matter fell to be decided under section 50,
1. R. O., by this Tribunal and the learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the same. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Karachi High Court in the case of Rauf Sugar Mills Employees' Union v. Fauji Sugar' Mills Ltd., C. P: No. 487 of 1974, which decision was upheld by a Divi--sion Bench of High Court. The :earned counsel for the appellant-Company also relied upon a decision of this Tribunal in the case of Rasheed Textile Mills Ltd. v. Rasheed Textile Mills Azad Mazdoor Union, decided on 10th November, 1981, in which, following the decision of the High Court in the case of Fauji Sugar Mills, an order of a learned Labour Court in an application .Under section 34; I. R. O. Was set aside on the ground that the said order involves interpretation of a settlement which was the exclusive jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
4. . Mt. M. L. Shahani, the learned counsel for the respondent union, on the other hand, submitted that- section 50,
1. R. O., comes into play only when there is any. Doubt or difficulty in interpreting a provision of a settlement but in the instant case no such doubt or difficulty has arisen because the wording of the settlement are quite clear and specific. According to the learned counsel there is nothing in the settlement, dated 13th July, 1981, to indicate that the increases in the wages or in the conveyance allowance had been,granted to the workers on account of the rise in the cost of living.
In support of his contention that the increase in wages was not due to the rise in cost of living the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of the Karachi High Court in the case of Employees' Welfare Union v. R. B. Industries Ltd. (1976 PLC 43). In that case an increase had been granted by the employer in the basic wages of workmen through a settlement. It was contended by the employer that this increase was on account of rise in the cost of living. Rejecting this contention, it was observed as follows :-- "The relevant clause in the settlement, as reproduced above, clearly states that the increases of Rs.
55 and Rs. 45, respectively is by way of increase in the basic salary. It nowhere specifically declares that it is an increase occasioned due to rise in cost of living. The provision of the law on the subject is quite clear and is not ambiguous. Any effort to prove through extraneous circumstances that the increase was due to rise in the cost of living is not called for. In view of the clear language used by the Legislature there is no room for any controversy in the matter."
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the abnormal increase in the wages and the conveyance allowance would indicate that the same was given on account of rise in the cost of living. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of my learned predecessor in the case reported as Elite Textile Mills Ltd. v. Workers Union (1974 PLC 240). In that case, it was held by my learned predecessor that because the increase in wages was by as much as 50%, the increase appeared to be on account of rise in the cost of living. In so far as the increase in wages are concerned, this decision appears to be in conflict with the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Employees' Welfare Union v. R. B. Industries Ltd. However, there is also the issue of increase in the conveyance allow--ance, which according to Mr. Abid Hameed Puri was very substantial, the increase being 40% of the original conveyance allowance. Mr. Shahani also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of the Karachi High Court in the case of New Jubilee Insurance Company v. District Judge Karachi and others (1981 PLC 566). In that case also, their lordships had repelled the contention that increase in wages was on account of rise-in cost of living. On the, twin grounds that settlement did not expressly recite that the increase was due to rise in the cost of living and further the increase in basic salary was granted only to permanent employees and not to the other employees. In the instant case, however, the increase in the wages and conveyance allowance has been granted to all categories of workmen.
5. Although the admitted position is that there is no specific mention in the settlement that the increase in wages or in the conveyance allowance granted to the workmen is an account of rise in the cost of living, since the contention of Mr. Puri is that as the increase is very substantial hence it should be presumed that the increase is on account of rise in the cost of living and as there is a decision of my learned predecessor in support of his conten--tion, it appears that there is a difficulty and doubt as to the interpretation of the settlement. The resolving of this difficulty or doubt is the exclusive jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 50, I. R. O., as held by the High Court in the case of Fauji Sugar Mills Ltd. The learned Labour Court , thus, had no jurisdiction to interpret the settlement.
6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would set aside the deci--sion of the learned Labour Court and would allow the appeal. Mr. Abid Hameed Puri, the learned counsel for the appellant-Company gave an under--taking that in order to settle the matter between the parties, the appellant.
Company would file an application under section 50, I. R. O. For interpretation of this provision. Mr. Puri undertakes to file the same within ten days.