DECISION ' On 20-5-1978, a settlement was arrived at between the Pak Cigarette Labour Union, the applicant herein, and the Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd., the respondents herein. Differences having arisen between the parties as to the interpretation of certain provisions of the settlement, the applicant have filed an application under section 50, I.R.O., to decide the matter. The differences between the parties are in respect of clauses (2), (3) and (4) of the agreement which reads as follows:- "2 PAY SCALES
(a) The existing pay scales KF.1 to KF. 20 will be revised as under with effect from 1st November, 1977: {{TABLE TEXT}} KARACHI FACTORY--PAY SCALES Existing Scales Rates New Scales Rates KF.
1. Rs,232-6x 19-346 KS. 1 Rs,262-6x 19-376 {{TABLE TEXT}} "3 INCREASE IN BASIC PAY ' The basic pay of all existing workmen will be increased by Rs,30 per month with effect from 1st November, 1977, or from the date of engagement in the case of those employed between 1st November, 1977, and the date of signing of this settlement."
4. CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE ' The existing rate of conveyance allowance will be increased by Re.1.00 per day with effect from 1st November, 1977, and the new rate from that date will be Rs,2.50 per day for ordinary conveyance allowance and Rs,2.85 per day for enhanced conveyance allowance."
2. It is contended by Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned counsel for the applicant Union, that clauses (2) and
(3) of the settlement provide a double benefit to the workman, the first being induction in the revised scale at the appropriate stage, and in addition an increase of Rs,30 in the wages so fixed in the revised scales. In other words, the contention of Mr. Ali Amjad is that while fixing the wages of the workman in the revised scales, the workmen should be given credit for their past service under the revised wages, i,e, that they should be given increments for the past service according to the rate of increments prescribed in the revised scales, and thereafter the additional increase of Rs,30 in the wages, as provided in clause (3) of the agreement, should be added to the wages. There is, however, no provision in the settlement that a worker should be fitted in the revised scales after giving him credit for the past increments according to the scale of increments prescribed in the revised scales. In fact it was admitted by the learned representatives for both the parties that there is no formula at all for fitting a worker in the new scales. In the absence of any such formula or provision for recalculating increments according to the increments provided in the revised scales, the workmen obviously would not be entitled to any such claim and they would be only entitled to wages in the revised scales, from the date the revised scales came into force, at the stage equal to their wages in the previous scales, and if there was no such scale then the scale next above. Of course, the workmen would also be entitled, to an increase of Rs,30 p.m. Over the wages which they were drawing previous to the date from which the revised scales came into force. It may be pointed out that the settlement of May, 1978 has since been superseded and replaced by a settlement arrived at on 25-5-1980, which is, however, to be effective from 1-12-1979. Clause (5) of this subsequent settlement provides for the mode of fixing the basic wages of the workmen in the revised scales. I am, therefore, of the opinion that no real difficulty arises in the interpretation of clauses (2) and (3) of the settlement of 1978.
3 There is, however, some confusion regarding the provisions of clause (4) of the settlement of 1978.
It provides, on the one hand, that there would be an increase in the existing conveyance allowance by Re.1 only and on the other hand it provides that the new rates of conveyance allowance would be Rs,2.50 per day for ordinary conveyance allowance and Rs,2.85 for enhanced conveyance allowance. The confusion arises on account of the fact that the previous rates of conveyance allowances were Rs,1.30 and Rs,1.65 per day. If, Re. 1 is added to such allowance, there would only be increase upto Rs,2.30 and Rs,2.65 per day and not Rs,2.50 and Rs,2.85 per day as stated in clause
(4) of the settlement in question. It was contended by Mr. Ali Amjad that since specific amount of ordinary and enhanced conveyance allowances had been stated in the settlement itself, the workmen are entitled to these conveyance allowance and the reference to increase of Re.1 in the existing allowance should be ignored. On the other hand, Mr. M.A. Khan submitted that the intention was to give an increase of only Re.1 in the existing conveyance allowances which has specifically been stated in clause (4) of the settlement but through a typing error the increased amounts of conveyance allowances have wrongly been shown as Rs,2.50 instead of Rs,2.30 and Rs,2.85 instead,of Rs,2.65. In support of his contention Mr. MA. Khan relied upon two pieces of evidence. The first is the letter from the respondent company to the appellant Union, dated 23 -1978, stating that the amount of conveyance allowance were wrongly shown in the settlement of 1978 due to a typing error as Rs,2.50 and Rs,2.85, while in fact the clear and correct intention of the parties was that increase in the previous conveyance allowances would be only Re.
1. The second circumstance relied upon in support of his contention by Mr. MA. Khan is clause (6) of the settlement of 1980, which provides that ordinary conveyance allowance would be increased from Rs,2.50 per day and enhanced conveyance allowance from Rs,2.65 to Rs,3.50 per day. I am not greatly influenced by these two pieces of evidence as the letter of 3-5-1978 merely puts forth the view of the management and clause (6) of the agreement of 1980 merely refers to what the workers were actually receiving as conveyance allowance and not what they were entitled to receive as conveyance allowance. However, even if these pieces of evidence relied upon by Mr. MA.
Khan are ignored then also I take the view that the intention of the parties was that the previous conveyance allowances would be increased by Re. 1 only. It appears that an error in calculation or in typing was made while putting down the actual amount to be paid as conveyance allowance.
Since this was not the intention of the parties and erroneous figures were typed in the settlement, the workers, during the period that the settlement was in force, would be entitled to an increase of only Re.1 over the previous rates of conveyance allowances, i,e, Rs,2.30 as ordinary conveyance allowance and Rs,2.65 as enhanced conveyance allowance.
4. As already pointed out the settlement of 1978 has since been replaced by the settlement of May, 1980 and hence the interpretation of the provisions of the settlement of 1978 has become rather academic.