DECISION This is a reference under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance for interpretation of the Settlement dated the 30th of January, 1974. The dispute is with regard to the cost of living allowance which has been fixed by the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act No. I of 1974 as amended by Act XLVll of 1974 allowing additional cost of living allowance at the rate of Rs. 50 per month or 10% of monthly wages whichever is more when the wages are below Rs. 1,000. This was given effect from the 8th of June 1974.
2. On 30th January, 1974 there was a Settlement between the parties allowing the following benefits: (a) Karachi Allowance--The Management have agreed to increase the Karachi Allowance to Rs. 25 per month for all employees excepting non-clerical staff and Rs. 15 per month for non-clerical staff. (b) The Management have agreed to increase the rate of Dearness Allowance from the existing rate of 55% to 75% of basic salary subject to a minimum of Rs. 75 per month. (c) The Management have agreed to pay Conveyance Allowance @ Rs. 50 per month to clerical staff and Rs. 45 per month to nonclerical staff. (d) The Management have agreed to pay House Rent Allowance @ Rs. 40 per month to all employees of the Bank. It has been contended on behalf of the Management that the aforesaid allowances except the Dearness Allowance are liable to be adjusted towards the cost of living allowance allowed by the aforesaid Act. With regard to Dearness Allowance it has been conceded that it is a part of the wages and cannot be adjusted. Taking up the remaining three benefits viz. Karachi Allowance, Conveyance Allowance and the House Rent Allowance I am of the view that these are not necessarily part of the cost of living allowance but may have been granted on different considerations. It cannot be denied that there are several other factors which influence the cost of living. Neither in the Settlement nor in any other document it has been shown that these allowances had been granted keeping in view the increase in the cost of living. Consequently I am not inclined to hold that these allowances were granted as a consideration for cost of living. I, therefore, reject the contention of the Management.
3. The reference is answered accordingly.