ORDER This is an application for interpretation of Clause 5 of the Settlement admittedly, arrived at between the parties on 11th August 1972. It relates to bonus. The contention of Mr. Mahmood A.
Ghani, the learned Representative for the applicant, is that they have already paid bonus under the said term, Clause 5, but the Union is demanding further bonus for a month and a half. He contends that the Union is not entitled to any more bonus besides, the one paid under Clause 5 of the Settlement. On the other hand, Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate for the respondent-Union, contends that bonus under Clause 5 of the Settlement is not covered by Clause 8, of the Settlement. He relies on the following term of Clause 8 "The facilities which are enjoyed by the employees before this agreement will continue to be enjoyed over and above the benefits of this agreement." 2. ln Clause 8 of the Settlement itself the Union agreed not to raise any financial demand during the operation of this Settlement up to 11th August 1974. Moreover, Clause 5 of the Settlement, which Mr. Ghani wants me to interpret, is very clear. The Union agreed not to raise any further or separate'claim for bonus under Standing Order 10-C of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. In short, the contention of Mr. Ali Amjad was that Clause 5 of the Settlement does not mean inclusive of what they were getting as bonus and that the Union is entitled under Clause 8 of the Settlement, already reproduced above, to claim one and half months wages as Profit Bonus, as they were getting this bonus every year.
This contention, however, stands modified by paragraph (1) of Clause 8 of the Settlement. It reads as under: "That the Union workers have agreed not to raise any financial demand during the operation of this settlement i.e. up to 11-8*1974."
3. I would hold aud interpret that the Union cannot raise auy further demand for bonus during the operation of this Settlement.