ORDER 2. This is an application under section 30 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), for interpretation of Clauses (1) and (2) of the Settlement dated 8th June 1973. lt is important to note that the present application was made on 5th December 1973.
This has been mentioned only to take into consideration that for about four months the Union was satisfied with the interpretation put by the Management. Mr. A. Majeed, the learned Representative for the applicant, in the first place contended that the words "be paid alongwith" in Clause 2(a) of the Settlement, does not mean inclusive of, as interpreted by the Management, but it means exclusive. In this connection, he relied on the meaning of "alongwith" as given in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary. It is not, however, necessary to give any interpretation to the word "alongwith" in the context of what I am going to observe now. The admitted position is that the] Settlement must be read as a whole for gathering the intention of the parties.L In this connection, in Clause 3 of the Settlement, two examples are given] which must be taken note of. Mr. Majeed, however, contended that that illustration to statute does not form part of the provision of that statute. In this connection, he relied on certain authorities of the High Court in which tne question for interpretation was the illustration to section 114 of the Evidence Act. It is true the illustration given to section 114 of the Evidence Act does not form part of section 114, as such, they are only illustrative of the intention of the law-giver and nothing more, but where the Settlement itself contains certain illustrations that cannot be ignored because that B illustration is part of the Settlement. Mr. Abdul Hafeez, the learned Representative for the respondent-Management, pointed out the conduct of the Union in keeping quiet for a period of about 4 months before asking for 1975 interpretation of the settlement.
It has been held by the Supreme Court ofj Pakistan that conduct of a party is relevant consideration in interpreting ale document to which he may be a party. j 3. If I were to accept the contention of Mr. Majeed and go against the examples given, the peons and the clerks will be benefited as they will be able to get more Gratuity. For the purposes of Gratuity personal allowance cannot form part of payment. Example 1, dealing with the case of peon reads as under:-- "A Peon was drawing Rs. 175 as consolidated pay as at 31-12-1970. To this amount of pay two increments will be added i.e. two increments of Rs. 8 each, thus his pay as at 1-6-1972 will be Rs. 191 + Rs. 55 as consolidated allowance. Total Rs. 246. The same Peon is now drawing: Basic. Conveyance House Rent. Medical B./F. Allowance. Allowance. 127 + 30 + 30 + 10 + 14 Total Rs. 211. To this add Rs. 40 as general increase in allowances bringing his total emoluments to Rs. 251. His new pay including allowances is Rs. 246 but he is now actually getting Rs. 251 and thus the excess amount of Rs. 5 will be treated as "Personal Allowance." In short the break-up of his emoluments will be as hereunder: Basic. Consolidated Personal Allowance. Allowance. 55 5 191 4. Similarly, Example 2 deals with the cases of Junior Clerks. With the breakup of new emoluments and after adding Rs. 40 General Increase in the pay a Junior Clerk would be drawing Rs. 20 more which would be treated now as "Personal Allowance". If the intention of the parties was, as Mr. Majeed interprets, the General Secretary of the Union should have not waited for so long to represent the workers.
5. For the reasons given above, I decline to accept the interpretation of Mr. Majeed. The application is dismissed.