DECISION ' This is an application under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, filed by Messrs Metro Garments Industries, Karachi, seeking an interpretation of clause 28 of a settlement, dated 25-9-1986 arrived at between the applicant management and the respondent C.B.A. Union, on the grounds, whether the proposals as laid down in the clause of a settlement, dated 25-9-1986 gave unfettered secured and guaranteed right for conversion, and whether in the absence of specific period and date the above claim can be lodged and agitated for immediate execution without subjecting the same to the convenience and discretion of the employer management.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that as a routine and also as a consequence to the Industrial Dispute, raised by the respondent union, a settlement was reached at between the parties on 25-9-1986 and the same shall remain effective and operative upto 31-8-1988 in accordance with the specific and incorporated terms and conditions. Thus, according to this clause 28, there was an agreed proposal for conversion of salaried workers as piece-rated workers and this clause further laid down that consequent upon such conversion, when effective, the concerned workers shall get the amount of gratuity computable till that time as per salary drawn by them and that gratuity of such workers, for the onward period starting from the date of conversion shall be worked out and payable on piece rate basis. It was also contended by the applicant management that clause 28 of the said settlement simply lays down a mutually agreed condition regarding the mode of payment of gratuity to a salaries worker who in pursuance of the Clause had to be converted as piece-rated worker, and that this conversion can be done at any time subject to exercise of discretion of the employer without entitling, securing or guaranteeing a right to a salaried worker for conversion as piece rated worker. It was also submitted by Mr. Zahiruddin Ansari, the learned Factory Manager that nothing is laid down in the said Clause showing that after coming into force of the said sentiment under interpretation, such conversion had become secured and the guaranteed right of a salaried worker. Mr. Ansari, however, contended that nothing was mentioned in the Clause, in question, of the said settlement giving rise to an inference that such conversion will give a secured and guaranteed right of the classified worker which is supported from the word ( sic ) as has been used in the beginning of the Clause, under reference which clearly established the fact that no period and no hard and specified date for such conversion had been agreed upon or committed. After careful perusal of the Clause 28 of the settlement, dated 28-9-1986 as well as the opening word, as stated above, it is crystal clear, beyond any doubt, that the applicant management was quite legally correct and justified in interpreting the Clause of the settlement, in question, that Clause 28 of the said settlement referring to a policy, did not at all secure or guarantee a vested right to individual worker or the union for compelling the employer to effect and implement the said policy from a particular date and that the execution and implementation of the policy, referred to in the Clause is subject to discretion and convenience of the employer, not open to be dictated.
3. However, I do not find any substance in the pleading of Mr. Akhtar Hussain General Secretary of the respondent C.B.A. Union that as there was no difficulty or ambiguity in interpretation of clause No, 28 of the settlement, dated 25-9-1986. The present application for interpretation was not maintainable. In view of the above discussion, I find that there had been a difficulty or ambiguity in the interpretation of Clause No, 28 of the said settlement, therefore, the applicant management was quite right in invoking the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, having a competent jurisdiction to entertain the present application.
4. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would uphold the contentions of the applicant management and would interpret Clause 28 of the settlement, dated 25-9-1986 in terms of the applicant management. The present application is accordingly disposed of.