ORDER ' This is an application under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), whereby Habib Textile Mills Labour Union (hereinafter called the Union), has prayed for interpretation of the settlement dated November 28, 1970 of Demand No. 9.
2. A preliminary objection was taken by Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani the learned Representative for the Management that the settlement having expired the question of interpretation of the same does not arise. On the other hand, Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate for the applicant-Union, contended that on the date when the application for interpretation was made, i. e. on 9th July 1973, the settlement was very much binding on the parties. Mr. Ghani contended that the settlement was terminated by the Union first on the 2nd of December 1972, then on 14th March 1973 and lastly on 2nd June 1973. It was submitted on behalf of the Management that the intention of the Union was not to abide by the terms of the settlement. Mr. Ali Amjad contended that the Management itself did not accept the notice sent by the Union terminating the settlement on 2nd December 1972 and, therefore the Union was obliged to serve the notice dated 2nd June 1973. I would hold that the letter dated 2nd December 1972 would have no legal effect of terminating the settlement. On the face of it, on 9th July 1973, when the application for interpretation was made, the settlement was operative between the parties.
3. Mr. Ghani in the next place contended that the settlement having been acted upon in the past years in accordance with the terms of the settlement, that is, bonus was paid in 1971 and 1972, under the term of the settlement, which was not objected to by the Union, it is now too late to agitate the matter. I do not think that any time-limit is prescribed under1 section 50 of the Ordinance for interpretation of a settlemsnt. All that I haveU to see is as to whether there is any difficulty or'doubt which can be said to1 legitimately arise requiring interpretation.
4. It was also contended by Mr. Ghani that the Union cannot be said to be an aggrieved party, inasmuch as, they have been accepting bonus in the past years without any complaint. They cannot be said to be an aggrieved party, so as to ask for interpretation of the settlement in question* In the first place, a notion about aggrieved party cannot be introduced in section 50 of the Ordinance. All that the Court has to see is as to whether there is any difficulty or doubt which requires interpretation. I have come to the conclusion that the Union is entitled to make an application for interpretation of the settlement in question.
5. The important question now for consideration is as to whether any difficulty or doubt arises as to the interpretation of any provision of the settlement in question or not. The relevant portion of section 50 of the Ordinance reads as under:-- "If any difficulty or doubt arises as to the interpretation of any provisions of an award or settlement, it shall be referred to the Tribunal constituted under this Ordinance."
6. The relevant provision of the settlement, which Mr. Ali Amjad, wants me to interpret runs as under:-- "Demand No. 9 (Bonus): (i) The Mills have agreed to pay bonus for the year April 1969 to March 31, 1970 on the principle followed in'previous years, i.e., bonus equal to 26 days* wages (excluding attendance and conveyance allowance) would be payable to those workers who have completed l2 months* service on March 31, 1970; and on pro rata basis to those workers who have completed three months but not twelve months' service on March 31, 1970. Payment will be made within 15 days of the signing of this agreement. (ii) It is further agreed that any yearly bonus payable in future during the operation of this settlement will be based on the principle enumerated in paragraph (1) above and the number of days and quantum of bonus will remain the same."
7. Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate, for the Union contended that the difficulty has arisen about the calculation of wages of piece-rate workers for 26 days. He contended that bonus of piece-rate workers should be calculated on the basis of the highest wages drawn by a piece-rate worker on any one day during l2 months. On the other hand, Mr. Ghani, the leamed Representative for the Management contends that the question of calculation of wages of piece-rate workers would arise for interpretation only if there is any difficulty or doubt in the settlement. He contends that the settlement is clear and unambiguous about the quantum of wages payable to piece-rate workers. He relies on the words in Damand No. 9(i) of the settlement, reproduced above, "on the principle followed in previous years." Mr. Ghani contends that the parties knew very well as to what was the principle, which was followed in the previous years for determining the wages for piece-rate workers. It was because of this that the workers in the previous years, i.e. 1971 and 1972, did not raise any dispute about the payment of bonus to piece-rate workers In the second place, Mr. Ghani contended that his contention finds support from the language of Paragraph 2 of the Settlement, already reproduced above. Under Paragraph 2 of the Settlement, the parties emphasised that the bonus will be paid for the number of days that / enumerated in Paragraph (/), and that the quantum of bonus will also remain the same. The quantum of bonus refers to the calculation of wages of piece-rate workers.
8. The Management has filed a reply to the application for interpretation filed by the Union. The Management stated in Paragraph 3, of their objection as under:-- "That the piece-rate workers have been receiving the bonus at a fixed pre-determined rate ever since 1956 and this principle was agreed upon also by the parties to the settlement in para. No. 9 of their settlement. Likewise a fixed quantum has been distributed as bonus among the piece-rated workers towards payment of bonus since 1956.** 9. It is noteworthy that in reply to the objection filed by the Management, it has not been denied that the piece-rate workers were not being paid bonus on a fixed pre-determined rate ever since 1956. I have referred to this aspect of the case only to support my conclusion that the language of the settlement is quite clear about the number of days for which bonus has to be paid and also about the quantum. The quantum was to be as was in the years previous to the settlement. I have come to the conclusion that there is B no difficulty or ambiguity, which requires interpretation. The application is dismissed,