DECISION This is a reference under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance for the interpretation of Clause 1(a) of the Settlement dated the 14th of December 1974.
2. On 18th April, 1972 a Settlement was reached between the parties agreeing to certain terms' and conditions including the scale of pay carrying Annual increment of a fixed sum. Again there was another Settlement dated the 14th of December 1974 whereby some additional benefits were allowed to the workmen.
The Clause in the Settlement which has been referred for interpretation reads as under:-- "Annual increment within the existing scale shall be allowed at the rate of 9% inclusive of increment already allowed. This shall be subject to adjustment if Government announces/declares any increment.'* 3.
The controversy has arisen as regards the method of calculating the increment. The Management entertains the view that the rate of increment as shown in the Settlement is a flat rate to be calculated on the basic pay without any change in the succeeding years whereas the case of the Employees is that the aforesaid increment has to be caclulated on the basis of the last pay drawn.
4. Indeed, the Settlement which has given rise to the controversy is not explicit in its term. It has not been stated as to whether the calculation of the increment would be based either'on the initial starting pay or on the pay last drawn at the time of the increment falling due.
5. The controversy can however, bo-resolved keeping in view the terms of the previous Settlement and other circumstances canvassed before me. In the previous Settlement a fixed sum as increment was shown. In the disputed Settlement this was not done and instead percentage was agreed upon. In my view this change was not without purpose or aimlessly made. In case a flat rate of increment on the basis of the initial pay was contemplated it presented no difficulty in calculating the amount and specifically showing the same in the scale. Since this course was not followed I am inclined to presume that the increment was intended to be calculated every year on the last pay drawn and not on the starting pay. A 6. Yet there is another aspect. No change in scale was made. The minimum and maximum of the scale remained unaffected. The increments were to operate within the scale. In the absence of any change in the scale, it seems to be the intention of the parties to allow substantial benefits to the workmen by way of increment. In this connection I would like to refer to the scale of Rs. 155-13-185 ('C' Grade) as shown in the previous Settlement. Calculating the increment at the rate of 9% on the basic pay, it works out to Rs.
14. Thus the difference is one Rupee only. Evidently this cannot be regarded as substantial benefit. t 7. It had, however, been emphasised on behalf of the Management that it was very unusual to allow flactuating increment depending upon last pay drawn contrary to the conception of the increments which were invariably uniform and in the form of a fixed sum. It was further contended that there would be inconsistency as different workmen in the same grade would receive different amount of yearly increment and this would cause heart-burning and unrest among the workmen receiving lesser amount by way of increment.
8. There is no force in these contentions as by Settlement the parties can agree to depart from the normal rule. There can also be no questiop of heart-burning and unrest among the workmen as they themselves had agreed to the fluctuating amount of the increment and were fully conscious of the fact that the increment would vary according to the last pay drawn by them. On the contrary they are to be benefited as there was no increase in the basics alary and every year the salary will increase by the addition of increments. Instances are not wanting that in the same grade, the amount of increment is enhanced successively after a few years.
9. Lastly, it has been contended that the workmen arc debarred from claiming any benefits involving financial implications for a period of two years in view of Clause 3 of the Settlement, lt is conveniently ignored that the workmen had not claimed any additional benefit in violation of the terms of Settlement. Their claim is based on the very clause requiring interpretation as is evident from what has already been stated. '
10. In the circumstances I up hold the contention of the workmen thatl they are to be allowed the benefit of the Annual Increment on the basis off the last pay drawn by them.
11. Reference is answered accordingly.