DECISION ' This application filed by the Prince Glass Works Workers Union seeking interpretation of the term of settlement, under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has arisen in the following circumstances.
2. The Union had raised an industrial dispute through a Charter of Demands, dated 1-4-1990 followed by a strike notice dated 11-10-1990. In the wake thereof, conciliation proceedings were held and it is alleged that a Memorandum of Settlement was signed between the parties. As difference of opinion had arisen between them on the interpretation of one of the terms of the settlement, an application under section 50 has been presented to seek interpretation of the term No, 4 of the settlement which reads as under:- "Demand No, 4-- Increase in bonus would be 2%."
3. Mr. S.P. Lodhi, learned Representative for the Union maintained that in the year 1986, the bonus paid to the workers was settled at 25% and in the settlement arrived at for the year 1988-89, the bonus agreed upon was 27%. Photostat copies of these documents are also on record as Exhs. 'D' and 'E'. It was urged by him that as a regular settlement/document was not duly drawn by the parties and they had agreed to act upon the minutes recorded in the office of the Conciliator, the terms pertaining to the bonus was not drafted with proper care and precision, but, the intention of the parties is clearly made out that there has to be an increase of 2% over and above 27% as given in the year 1988-89.
4. Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, learned Representative for the respondents maintained that the document had to be taken into consideration by itself and there was no question of trying to gather the intention or the will of the parties by referring to extraneous documents or evidence. He also maintained that the workers had duly collected the payments of the bonus for the years, in question, and having done so they were estopped from raising the issue once again by way of interpretation. The third contention raised by him was that the settlement is always prospective unless it explicitly mentions that it had a retrospective effect from a specified date.
5. It is not necessary in the circumstances of the case to advert to the, latter contentions of Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani as I am of the opinion that the very first contention is enough to dispose of the matter.
6. There is a string of authorities to the effect that the question of leading any evidence or trying to gather the intention of the parties through evidence or otherwise is unwarranted and totally misconceived. The document interpretation whereof is sought has to speak for itself and it is not permissible to travel outside. Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani has referred to the cases of Employees Union v. Dada Limited and another 1975 PLC 276; (2) Kohinoor Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Workers Union 1975 PLC 717; (3) Volkart (Karachi) Staff Union v. Volkart (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi 1979 PLC 142 and (4) Fauji Sugar Mills, Hyderabad v. Fauji Sugar Mills Employees Union 1979 PLC 170; which fully support his contentions.
7. I am clearly of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case, the application is misconceived and does not lie. I will, therefore, dismiss the application.