DECISION This is a reference under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 made by the Union for the interpretation of Clause 5 of the Settlement dated the 26th of May 1973. This Clause reads as under: "It is agreed that the Corporation will raise the rate of annual increment to workmen in category 'E* from Rs. 5 to Rs. 7.'* 2. Yet there is another Clause which is relevant for interpretation and this is Clause 9(a) which reads as under: "It is agreed by the Front that the financial benefits accruing to the workmen in consequence of this agreement will take effect' front the First of May 1973.*'
3. On the basis of Clause 5 the Union claimed that all the employees in category *E* should be placed at the same number of notches at the raised rate of Rs. 7 i.e. if the employee had drawn five increments at the old rate, he would be entitled to get difference of Rs. 2 in all the previous increments.
4. The Management did not agree to this interpretation. It was the case of the Management that the benefits of increment had to be allowed according to the dates of increement falling on or after lst of May 1973.
5. Since there existed a difference between the parties the Union moved the Labour Court under section 30 of the I. R. O. for the enforcement of the claim under the Settlement. This was contested by the Management. The Labour Court after hearing the parties entertained the view that this was a question of interpretation of the Settlement and, therefore, was within the exclusive jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The direction was accordingly issued by the Labour Court.
6. In view of the direction given by the Labour Court, the present reference was made by the Union. I have heard the learned counsel for the Union and I am of the view that the contention of the Union cannot be entertained. I have already indicated there are two Clauses which are material for the determination of the question agitated by the parties. These Clauses are Nos. 5 and 9. It is plain enough that Clause No. 5 which had been mainly relied upon by the Union has to be read subject to Clause 9 restricting the financial benefits from a particular date i.e. with effect from First of May 1973. Evidently no financial benefit is accruable to the employees from a date prior to it. This necessarily means that the benefit of I increase in the increment has to be allowed according to the dates of thel/t increment of the various employees falling on or after lst of May 1973.| There is nothing in the Settlement to read that all the employees have to be placed in the same notches in order to be allowed the increments or the difference from a date prior to lst of May 1973. In case the construction suggested by the Union is adopted it will defeat what has been provided by the Clause 9 of the Settlement. f 7. In view of the view that had been entertained I have not found it necessary to issue notice to the Management. The reference stands answered accordingly.