This is an application under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), for Interpretation. I may point out at once that the application is vague and does not pointedly mention as to what I have to interpret. It would have served useful purpose and mono so in the absence of any objection on behalf of the Management to dismiss the application on that ground. The applicant could have made another application specifically pointing out the clause which it wanted me to interpret. In the arguments however, Mr. A. Majeed, the learned Representative for the applicant, made it clear that the Union wants me to interpret Clause (1) of the Settlement dated 21st September 1970 arrived at between the Fauji Sugar Mills Employees'
Union (hereinafter called the applicant and the Fauji Sugar Mill (hereinafter called the respondent).
Para. 1 of the Memorandum of Settlement, which is sought to be interpreted, reads a under :- "The parties agree to refer the dispute relating to evolution of a Bonus Formula for arbitration of Mr. Hamza Khan Quraishi, District and Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, with a request to give his award by the 20th October 1970,1n view of the urgency of the matter."
2. Under section 50 of the Ordinance, "If any difficulty or doubt arises as to the interpretation of any provisions of an award or settlement, It shall be referred to the Tribunal constituted under this Ordinance." According to Mr. Majeed, the difficulty has arisen in this way. Mr. Hamzo Khan gave an award on 17th November 1970, whereby he ordered the Management to pay 3-- months' bonus to each worker of the Mills. The Management, admittedly, has paid 3-- months' pay as bonus to each of its worker. The award has been acted upon, which was valid according to the term of the award and reference for the year 1969-70 only. On the face of it, as rightly contended by Mr. Bashiruddin, the learned representative for the respondent, that whatever interpretation the Tribunal may give to the term of Settlement dated 21st September 1970, reproduced above, will have no effect in respect of bonus for the year 1969-70. I am of the view, considering the fair attitude of the respondent and the amicable spirit in which the Union has tried to solve the question of bonus that the interpretation of the term, already referred, will avoid misunder--standing between the parties and clear the way for negotiations and settlement. The difficulty and doubt has arisen, as according to the respondent the award has evolved a bonus formula. While on the other hand, according to the applicant, the award has not evolved any basis for distribution of bonus. All that the award has allowed is that 3-- months' pay should be paid as bonus to each worker. This, according to the applicant, cannot be said to be fixed formula for distribution of bonus in future. I have come to the conclusion that the difficulty doubt is there entitling the applicant to ask for interpretation of the team of the Settlement dated 21st September 1970.
3. The facts giving rise to the application briefly put are these. The applicants gave a strike notice with a Charter of 10 demands. As a result of several Conciliation meetings a Settlement was arrived at on 23rd 'February 1970, whereby to of the demands, t e. Demands Nos. 9 and 10 were withdrawn by the Union and 8 of the demands were mutually settled. One of the terms of Settlement was as under:-- "The Management have agreed to evolve a formula of payment of Bonus on the basis of percentage of profit before payment of final bonus for 1969-70. If the formula is not acceptable to the Union, the Union would be at liberty to raise their demands again at any moment."
4. There was negotiation between the Union and the Management to evolve a formula for payment of bonus. They tried to evolve a formula on profit as well as production basis. They failed to come to a settlement on either basis, with the result that the applicant gave another strike notice on 29th August 1970, proposing to cell a strike on 27th September 1970, in case their demand relating to bonus was not met. Thereafter, there were several Conciliation meetings between the parties, which ultimately resulted in the settlement dated 21st September 1970, whereby the parties agreed to refer the dispute, for evolution of bonus formula, to the arbitration of Mr. Hamzo Khan, District and Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
5. Before I proceed to give my interpretation of the term of Settlement, I would make the following observation in order to avoid unnecessary litigation and misunderstanding :---
(1) The interpretation will not effect, in any way, whatsoever, the bonus for the year 1969-70. This was one of the terms of award and term of reference to the Arbitrator. More--over, this position was conceded by Mr. Majeed in hit arguments.
(2) The Union in law was entitled to raise fresh dispute in respect of bonus for the year 1970-71 and claim a fixed principle on which bonus should be calculated. If the parties known as to what is understood by evolution of bonus formula it will helpful for them to arrive at some amicable settlement either through the good offices of Labour Welfare Department or mutual negotiations or through arbitration or Labour Court.
6. Mr. Bashiruddin, the learned Representative for the respondent contended, in the first place, that the award dated 17th November 1970, is very clear and does not require any interpretation. This is so Mr. Majeed, however, does not pray for interpretation of the award. He prays for interpretation of a term of the Settlement dated 21st September 1970. In the second place, Mr. Bashiruddin, contended that the settlement dated 21st September 1970, has merged into the award dated 17th November 1970, and therefore, it does not require any interpretation. There is not much force in this contention. Under section 50 of the Ordinance, the Tribunal can be required to interpret a settlement or an award. It has not been urged before me that the document dated 21st September 1970, is not a settlement. In that view of the matter will that a party requiring the Tribunal to interpret the settlement has to establish is that some difficulty or doubt has arisen as to its interpretation. I have already observed that certain difficulty or doubt has arisen as to the true meaning of the term embodied in the Settlement dated 21st September 1970. In third place, it was contended by Mr. Bashiruddin that the object of the application for interpretation is to avoid the award. There is no force in this contention. Mr. Majeed made it clear that his object was not to challenge the award dated 17th November 1970, but only to avoid future misunderstanding as to what is the interpretation of the term of the Settlement dated 21st September. 1970. Lastly, it was contended by the learned Representative for the respondent that the award dated 17th November 1970, operates as estoppel against the Union for raising the demand for bonus during the period of operation of the award. Mr. Majeed does not challenge the award given by the Arbitrator. The award itself makes it clear that the same is operative only for the year 1969-70. The interpretation that I propose to give will not affect the past but only the future which is not covered by the award.
7. I now proceed to give my interpretation of the term of Settlement dated 21st September 1970, which runs as under :- "The parties agree to refer the dispute relating to evolution of a Bonus Formula for arbitration of Mr. Hamza Khan Quraishi, District and Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, with a request to give his award by the 20th October 1970, in view of the urgency of the matter."
8. In Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary the evolu--tion means, "the at of unrolling or unfolding: gradual working out or development . . . . ." Formula in the said Dictionary means, "a prescribed form: a general expression for solving problems . . . . . ."
9. It appears to me that the applicant and the respondent intended to resolve the dispute regarding bonus for some years to come by having some fixed formula according to which the Management could calculate and pay bonus to the workers of the, Mill every year. To my mind there is a clear distinction between evolution of a formula for payment of bonus and the dispute relating to bonus. Under the latter, the Arbitrator may not evolve any method by which bonus could be calculated, but only award bonus. Formula can be evolved on the basis of profit or production as the Union and the Management had tried at some stage to evolve. There may be other basis for evolving a formula for payment of bonus as well. My interpretation or the term of Settlement dated 21st September 1970, is that the parties desired to have a set formula on the basis of which bonus may be paid each year.
10. I have given the interpretation with the hope and belief that the Union and the Management knowing their true position would at sensibly in their own interest and resolve the difficulty amicably.