DECISION This is an application under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance for interpretation of the settlement dated lst of February 1974. The Union raised an Industrial dispute making certain demands. Subsequently an agreement was reached whereby the salary was increased by 8 % house rent was granted at 10%, maternity expenses were, increased from Rs. 150 to Rs. 200, conveyance allowance was increased from Rs. 20 to Rs. 30 p.m., some allowances were increased in respect of certain categories of employees, shoe allowance was increased from Rs. 20 to Rs. 40 and scale of salary was revised with regard to some categories of employees. A few other facilities were also granted,
2. On the promulgation of the Cost of Living (Relief) Ordinance the employees made a demand as allowed by the Ordinance but the Management rejected the demand on the ground that the increase under the various items was allowed as a result of the cost of living and, therefore, it was required to be adjusted. The employees not having accepted this plea made an application to this Court for the interpretation of the Settlement.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the Management that the various reliefs were granted in order to provide relief on account of the cost of living and, therefore, the claim by the employees was not justified. In the alternative it was contended that in order to find out whether the relief was intended to cover the cost of living evidence was required to be led and it was only on the basis of that evidence that conclusion, one way or the other, could be drawn. To this it was added that the employees had already approached the Labour Court and the claim was still pending adjudication.
4. In order to meet this objection it was pleaded on behalf of the employees that according to the explanation added to section 8 allowances not specifically given to provide a relief due to the rise in the cost of living could not be deemed to have been so given.
5. On consideration of the argument advanced before me I am of the view that so far as the salary is concerned, evidence is required as to whether the increase was intended to provide relief due to a rise in the cost of living and since this matter is already under adjudication before the Labour Court no opinion can be expressed. This question will be fully investigated and, decided by the Labour Court. .
6. As regards the remaining benefits, the case is clearly covered by the explanation. I have gone through the Settlement and there is nothing to indicate that the benefits were allowed as a relief due to a rise in the cost of living. Unless it is specifically stated in the Settlement the benefit cannot be' considered to have been intended to provide relief due to rise in the cost of living. Consequently the Management is not entitled to adjust the various allowances treating them as relief due to rise in the cost of living.