DECISION This is an appeal under section 37 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance against the award.
2. The respondent Union raised an industrial dispute by serving a Demand Notice dated 19th of February, 1973 under section 26(1) of the I. R.O, raising the demand for bonus for the year ending 31st December, 1972. However, a settlement was reached on 22nd of February, 1973 whereby bonus equivalent to 10% of the total wage earning was agreed upon. This settlement was signed by the President, Vice-President and Joiat Secretary while the General Secretary, Gul Farosh, was not present as he had already been dismissed from service. In pursuance of this settlement the bonus was paid to the workers.
3. However, Gul Farosh, re-agitated the issue of bonus and demanded the payment of bonus under Standing Order 10-C. This was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the bonus which was paid under the settlement covered bonus payable under Standing Order 10-C. In view of this attitude the General Secretary made an application under section 34 of the I.R.O, to the Labour Court on 19th of May, 1973, but this was dismissed in view of the judgment in . 4.
After the dismissal of the application a charter of demands under section 26(1) of I.R.O, was served by a notice dated 15th June, 1974. The demand for sick leave was made in addition to the demand for bonus under Standing Oi;der 10 C. The strike notice dated 28th June 1974 was also served. The conciliat on proceedings having failed the workers went on strike with effect from the 17th of July, 1974 and it was prohibited by the Provincial Government vide Notification dated 29th August, 1974 but the workers continued the strike. Subsequently on account of the intervention of the Director of Labour the strike was called off and the workers resumed work on 25th September, 1974.
5. The Union filed an application before the Labour Court for the adjudication of the demands. 1 he appellant raised an objection that since the demand was covered by the settlement no such dispute could be raised. 7.
6. Evidence was tendered. On the basis of the evidence the Labour Court allowed the demand for bonus as the demand for sick leave had already been settled between the parties. Aggrieved by the award the present ' appeal had been filed. The Labour Court entertained the view that since the bonus which was said to have been paid was by virtue of the settlement and not under Standing Order 10-C, the workers were entitled to claim the bonus. It appears that the learned Presiding Officer did not apply his mind to clause (3) of the settlement whith cl arly provides that bonus which was granted under the settlement included the bonus allowed under Standing Order 10-C of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance.
Thus there is no force in the contention that the bonusl agreed upon was in addition to the bonus allowed under Standing Ordeip 10- C. I am prepared to concede that if any term of settlement is contrary to the provision of law and to the dis-advantage of the workers that term is unvalid, but in the present case it has not been shown nor there is any evidence to show that the bonus allowed by the settlement is less than the bouns allowed under Standing Order 10-C. In case the bonus available under Standing Order 10-C is less advantageous than the bonus allowed under settlement the Union can certainly approach the Labour Court under section 34 of I R.O. to seek the relief as it is a right guaranteed or secured by law. Naturally evidence will have to be taken to find out the amount of profit made by the Company for the purpose of3 awarding bonus under Standing Order 10-C. The observation which had been made in the has been clearly misunderstood and I have already made the clarification in decided on 29-8-1975.
8. It was further held by the Labour Court that the settlement was not valid as it was not signed by the General Secretary. Tne necessity of the signature of the General Secretary does not find support from any provision of law or bye-laws of the Union. I specifically asked the representative on behalf of the Union to point out any provision of law or the bye-laws but he could not. I have gone through the bve-laws and there is nothing to support the view taken by the Labour Court. The settlement was signed by all the office-bearers of the Union except the General Secretary and in the absence of any restriction it is rediculous to suggest that such a settlement is un-aulhoriscd or void. This settlement was, in fact, acted upon and the workers had received the bonus before the matter was re-agitated by the General Secretary. With regard to observation of the Labour Court that the bonus which was received was under the settlement and not under Standing Order 10-C which was claimed by the Union and, therefore, the settlement having acted upon could not debar the Union to re-agitate the matter, I* must say that the observation of the Labour Court has been misplaced and not justified in view of the term 3 of the settlement as already referred to above.
9. It is rather strange that the settlement was held to be in contravention of the Standing Orders Ordinance as well as the Industrial Relations Ordinance and thereby it was treated to be void yet the bonus allowed by the settlement remained un*affected and in addition the claim for bonus under Standing Order 10-C was granted. This is against the fundamental principle of law to the effect that in case any agreement is void neither party is entitled to receive any benefit under that void agreement and if any party has received it is required to return the benefits. It, therefore, follows that the Union was not entitled to receive bonus under the settlement in addition to the bonus allowed under Standing Order 10-C and the bonus received under settlement was required to be returned or adjusted towards the bonus allowed under Standing Order 10-C. The Union cannot claim both kindsi of bonus but can confine the claim to the bonus which g *more beneficial tolc the workers. *** I 10. In the result I allow the appeal and set aside the award and remand the case to the Labour Court for decision as to whether the bonus allowed under the settlement or under Standing Order 10-C is beneficial to the workers and dispose of the dispute accordingly.