DECISION ' This is an application under section 50 of IRO 1969 for interpretation of clauses{{URDU TEXT}} of the settlement arrived at between the parties on 1-11-1989.
2. I have heard Mr. Wasi Ahmed, representative for the applicant and Mr. Ali Amjad learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the settlement between the applicant and the Workers Union produced alongwith the application.
3. The clauses {{URDU TEXT}} of the settlement under the heading `Bonus', which this Tribunal has been asked to interprete may be reproduced as under:- {{URDU TEXT}}
4. The language of these clauses is very clear and unambiguous. There appears to be apparently no need of interpretation. However, Mr. Wasi Ahmed contended that necessity for interpretation has arisen in view of the decision of this Tribunal in Appeal No, KAR-451 of 1989 in the case of Muhammad Saleem v. M/s. Metro Garment Industries decided by this Tribunal on 26-11-1990.
5. In that case under previous settlement between the union and the employer the bonus of piece- rated workers was fixed at Rs,1,000 in lump sum. However, in that case the workman was able to prove that he was drawing more than Rs,1,000 as his wages per month and as such this clause of agreement was violative of Standing Order 10-C. This Tribunal accepting his contention ordered the payment of bonus @ Rs,2,483.33, which were his average monthly wages for the year 1987, after deducting the bonus of Rs,1,000 already paid to him.
6. Mr. Wasi Ahmed has contended that bonus payable under Standing Order 10-C of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 is subject to the earning of profit by the establishment, whereas the bonus given by the applicant under settlement is irrespective of the fact whether the applicant earned profit or goes into losses.
7. Section 4 of Ordinance is very relevant which may be reproduced as under:- "The Standing Orders may be modified by means of collective agreement and not otherwise: ' Provided that no such agreement shall have the effect of taking away or diminishing any right or benefit available to the workmen under the provisions of the Schedule."
8. The plain reading of this section would show, that by collective agreement the employer may give more to the workers than prescribed under Standing Orders Ordinance but such an agreement cannot take away or diminish any right or benefit available to the workers under the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance. In other words the employer can give more than what is prescribed in Standing Order 10-C but he cannot give less. This view also finds support from the decision of Full Bench of N.I.R.C. In the case of Silver Cotton Mills Limited, Karachi v. Workers Union 1976 PLC 84. It was observed that "what Standing Order 10-C seems to provide is, a minimum guarantee to the workmen in respect of bonus but it in no case whittles away their right to receive bonus higher than the one provided for in Standing Order 10-C, clause (1), if they are entitled thereto".
9. Whether the amount fixed as bonus under the settlement under clauses {{URDU TEXT}}is less than the amount payable to a worker as a bonus under Standing Order 10-C would depend upon each individual case. This -bonus relates to those workers, who do not get fixed salary but get the wages in accordance with the work done by them. In certain cases such workers would he earning less than the amount of fixed bonus under settlement and in some cases they may be earning more. There is no evidence and there can be no evidence to enable this Tribunal give finding as to in cases of which workers, the clauses would be violative of Standing Orders 10-C, and in case of which workers the above clauses of settlement would be more beneficial.
10. As pointed above the language of the two clauses is very clear and unambiguous and does not require any interpretation. The application for interpretation, therefore, is dismissed.