Decision, This is an Application under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 for interpretation of a Settlement entered into between the parties on the 28th of August 1973, whereby the applicant had agreed tip increase the wages of certain categories of workers. The difficulty has arisen because of the Ordinance XXII of 1973 promulgated on 17th of September 1973. The difficulty has arisen because of the proviso of section E of the Ordinance XXII of 1973, The proviso provides that if any amount has been paid which is intended to provide relief due to a rise in cost of living such employer shall not be required to pay such employee any amount in excess if any between the amount so paid by them on the cost of living payable to such employees.
2. Mr. Kamal for the applicant contends that increase in the wages was intended to provide relief Jut to a rise in the cost of living and 'therefore the Company is liable to pay only a difference between what has been paid and what is provided under the Ordinance XXII of 1973. That the difference between what has been paid and Rs. 35 provided under Ordinance XXII of 1973. In this connection it may be mentioned at one that the intention of the parties is to be gathered from primarily what is stated in the Settlement self Under the Settlement as much as Paisas 51 has been increased in the Wages of Unskilled workers; 62 Paisas to Semi-skilled workers and Paisas 72 for Skilled workers. Thus the increase appear to be more than 50% in the wages of the workers. Mr. Kamal contend is that the intention of his client cannot be anything but to safeguard the increase in the cost of living by increasing more than 50% in the wages of his workers. On the other hand Mr. Kamal Siddiqui, learned the Advocate for the opposite-party submitted that had the intention of the parties been to increase the -wages because of the increase in the cost of living there would have been increase in the workers who are getting salary instead of wages. In this connection he made a reference to Annexure 'B' itself which provides that the Settlement will not cover the cases of those who are employed on salary. The clause relied upon by Mr. Siddiqui translated in English reads as under: "It has been decided mutually that the workers. Or employees who are drawing pay will not be entitled to this increase and this Settlement will not cover their cases."
On the other hand Mr. Kamal for the Management submitted that there has been an increase in the past though provided in the later part of Annexure 'B' In the pay of the employees of the Company from the 1st of January, 1974 of Rs. 20 they have also been granted an additional amount of Rs. 15 as Conveyance Allowance. Mr. Siddiqui also made a reference to the demand of Dearness Allowance y the Union. He submitted that Union did not press this demand. Had the intention of the Union been so. There is not much force in this contention. A reference to the demand itself, which is mentioned in Annexure 'A' would show that there is not much force in this contention. The demand as to `Dearness Allowance" was only in respect of one section of workers tamely those who were working on contract. The demand as to "Dearness Allowance" translated in. English reads as under: "All persons working on contract should be allowed Rs. 3 per day as Dearness Allowance."
3. For the reasons given above I accept the contention of Mr. Kamal that the Company can take advantage of the provision of section $ of the/A Ordinance XXII of 1973.