DECISION This is a reference under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
2. The respondent-Union had raised an industrial dilute agitating various demands. A Settlement was reached whereby the Management allowed an increase of Rs. 30 in the wages with effect from the 20th of December, 1973. The other benefits which were allowed included the increase of Re. 1 in the rate of Annual Increment and Rs. 10 as House Rent Allowance. The Management had also agreed to run Canteen on 'no profit no loss* basis and supply two sets of uniforms to all workers every year. In addition the Management agreed to allow the Company's products for domestic use at ex-factory wholesale price to the extent of one month's wages/earning of the workers during the year. 3.
Subsequently Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act was passed allowing Rs. 50 per month or 10% of the monthly wages whichever was more if the wages did not exceed Rs. one thousand in addition to Rs. 35 etc., already allowed. It was, however, provided by section 8 that if any sum was allowed by Settlement etc., intended to provide relief due to rise in the cost of living it will be adjusted and the difference, if any, shall be paid.
4. After the promulgation of Cost of Living Act granting the additional relief of Rs. 50 the workmen called upon the Management to pay it. But it was asserted by the Management that relief on account of cost of living was already granted by increase in salary and the grant of House Rent Allowance, and, therefore, Rs. 40 had to be adjusted and only Rs. 10 were payable. This was not accepted by the Union consequently the present reference was made by the Management.
5. On hearing the arguments lam of the view that the increase of Rs. 30 in wages was due to the increase in the cost of living and, therefore, this amount had to be adjusted as claimed by the Management. So far as the House Rent is concerned this cannot be treated as claimed by the Management and, therefore, no deduction on that account can be allowed.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent urged before me that it was , nowhere provided either in the Charter of Demands or in the Settlement that the increase in the salary was towards the cost of living allowance. Indeed it is so but reading the entire Settlement there can be no escape from the conclusion that the increase in salary was effected for granting relief due to cost of living. Not only the salary was increased but House Rent Allowance was granted, the rate of increment was increased, Canteen was agreed to be established and to be run on *no profit no loss' basis, two sets of summer uniforms were provided and finally the products of the Company were allowed on concessional rates. In view of the various benefits allowed to the workers I am inclined to hold that the increase in wages was to provide relief on account of cost of living and, therefore, the Management is entitled to adjust the amount granted by way of increase in wages only. It may be stated here that the claim of the Management to adjust the amount granted by way of House Rent allowance is rejected. The reference is answered accordingly. ^