JUDGMENT This is a petition under section 50 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for the interpretation of Clause No. 27 regarding bonus for the year 1974-75 in the settlement dated 22-7- 1974 arrived at between the parties.
2. Workers' Union, Hussain Sugar Mills, Jaranwala filed an application under section 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for the enforcement of the right guaranteed or secured to them under clause 27 of the settlement Workers' Union v. Hussain Sugar Mills Ltd. 875 (M. Jamil Asghar, Appellate Tribunal) dated 22-7-1974 arrived at between the parties.
In that clause of the settlement a formula was laid down regarding bonus for the year 1974-75.
Acccording to the Management the bonus for that year was to include the bonus under ? 10-C of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The production for the year ending 30-9-1975 came to 180764 bags of sugar. The Management in accordance with the above formula declared a bonus of 2 months and 13 days. The claim of the petitioner-Union was that the bonus under ? 10-C was not included in the above formula and so they are entitled to get bonus for one month more. In other words they demanded bonus of 3 months and 13 days. According to the Management on the 2nd and the 3rd day of the settlement, there was a dinner in the premises of the mill, where all the parties were present. In order to remove doubt it was agreed that the following words be added immediately after Demand No. 27 (page 4, line 7):-- "10(C) j*jj It was alleged that this amendment was signed by Maqbool Ahmad, Joint Director, Labour Welfare and Mr. Muhammad Saeed, the then General Manager of the Mill. It was initiated by the writer i.e. Muhammad Sabir, General Secretary of the Union. On tbe same day on page 1 of the settle ment, just before Demand No. 1, the following addition was also made:-- fy*\ AiyO-Jjjl" It was alleged that this amendment was signed by Maqbool Ahmad, Joint Director, Muhammad Saeed and Ikramul Haq, the then President of the Union.
3. The learned Labour Court vide its decision dated 21-6-1975 held that words "(10 (C) J*^)" in line 7 of page 4 of the settlement deed had been forged by the Management. The learned Labour Court also observed ;-- "After coming to the above decision, the question still remains whether the workers are entitled to the bonus under 10*C, The Union says that the said bonus was not included in the said formula. On the other hand, the Management says that the said bonus was included. It is a question of interpretation of the settlement and the law as given in section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is that if any difficulty or doubt arises as to the interpretation of any provision of the award, or settlement, it shall be referred to the Appellate Tribunal constituted under this Ordinance. I am not competent to interpret the award on the question as to whether the bonus will be included in the formula given in the settlement. The Union will be at liberty to make a reference to the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. For the foregoing reasons the petition is rejected."
4. After the dismissal of the application under section 34 the Workers' Union Hussain Sugar Mills preferred this petition under section 50 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for the interpretation of clause 27 of the settlement regarding the bonus for the year 1974*75.
5. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the settlement produced by the petitioner-union was not the linal settlement arrived at between the parties. According to the respondent, the settlement with the addition of the words ''(10(C) after Demand No. 27, page 4, line 7 and the words "(&V fjjl)** on page 1 immediately before Demand No. 1 was the final settlement arrived at between the parties.
6. Now the question for determination is as to whether the respondent can be allowed to produce evidence to prove that the settlement relied upon by him was the final settlement arrived at between the parties. It is well established that a decision of a Labour Court under section 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is not an award and, therefore, its decision is final and no appeal lies against it. But in this case it has to be seen as to whether the decision dated 21-6-1975 of the Labour Court was a decision under section 34 of the Ordinance. Under section 34 a Labour Court has to enforce a settlement. Before enforcing the settlement if the Labour Court finds that there is any difficulty or doubt as to the interpretation of the settlement, then the matter has to be referred to the Tribunal.
In the present case the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court found difficulty in interpreting the settlement and that is why he did not enforce it or make any decision. He could not enter upon the merits of the documents, when he found difficulty in understanding the intention of the parties.
Therefore whatever he has given, he has exceeded his jurisdiction. It was forHhe Tribunal to determine that question under section 50 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to enforce a settlement which he could not follow. If he tries or attempts to remove or solve any difficulty or doubt as to the interpretation of the settlement, he has exceeded his jurisdiction. Therefore whatever the finding the Labour Court has given is without j urisdiction and as such is nullity in law.
7. In view of the above I will give an opportunity to the respondent to produce evidence to prove that the settlement relied upon by him was in fact the settlement arrived at between the parties.