DECISION This appeal from the order of the Labour Court No.V, Karachi, by which the petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to pay the Utility Allowances to the petitioners from 1-1-1991 to 31-12- 1992, has arisen in the following circumstances:-- The petitioners on 1-1-1991 had served a Charter of Demands on the respondents under section 26(1) of the I.R.O. Bilateral negotiations had followed and a settlement was reached between the parties on 9-4-1991 which included the demand of Utility Allowance (electricity, gas and water), clause 4 thereof was couched in the following words:-- "It is mutually agreed that the Utility Allowance shall be paid to all categories of the employees at the rate of Rs.200 per month on re--imbursement basis."
2. The entire settlement except the clause in question was honoured by the respondents. As clause No.11 of the settlement enjoined that "any difference, ambiguity, or dispute arising out of the interpretation of any of the clauses terms or workings of the Agreement shall be referred by the union to the Chairman of the Corporation for a decision, the petitioners wrote a few letters to the Chairman that the clause in regard to the re-imbursement of the Utility Allowance also be implemented. As the efforts failed the petitioners served a grievance notice and later filed the petition under section 25-A(10)IRO before the Labour Court for the enforcement of the rights accruing under the settlement.
3. The respondents in their written reply alleged that the petition was barred by time and the Court had no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter. It was further alleged that the petitioners were estopped by their own conduct to file the petition and that there was no right, much less any right guaranteed or secured under any law award or settlement, and therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed-,
4. Mujeeb Ahmed the General Secretary of the Union which is the C.BA., appeared on behalf of the petitioners and Abdul Sattar Khan, Manager Administration of the respondents establishment appeared on the latter's behalf.
5. The Labour Court for the reasons given by it answered all the issues in favour of the petitioner and allowed the petition, culminating in this appeal.
6. The settlement was to be effective from the 1st of January, 1991 up to 31-12-1992. The grievance notice was served on 12-12-1991 and the petition was filed on 27-2-1992. As the Chairman had to be approached for the resolution of all the difficulties in the implementation of the settlement, a number of letters had been sent by the union to him.
7. There is hardly any question for s1elay. Otherwise too the non--fulfillment of the terms of the settlement will be a continuing injury every month. Under the circumstances there is no force in regard to the bar of limitation.
8. One of the grounds in the memorandum of appeal was that the petitioners "through its letter dated 31-7-1991 had conceded and accepted implementation of the agreement dated 9-4-1991 accepting terms under clause No.4". The letter in question reads as follows:-- "The Chairman, National Insurance Corporation, Karachi.
With reference to our several meetings regarding implementation of our above cited agreement, it has revealed that Demand No.4 under the head "Utility Allowance" existing in the agreement is the main problem between the Ministry of Commerce and the Management and presently the Management is unable to implement the agreement in toto.
In the circumstances it is desired that the terms of agreement excepting term under Demand No.4 of the agreement may be implemented forthwith for the present without prejudice to right of C.BA.
Or individual worker to resort to any legal action.
Yours faithfully, A very look at the letter shows that there was no question of any waiver at all therein.
9. There was a further contention though raised feebly, that it could be case for seeking interpretation under section 50 of the I.R.O. And not under section 25-A. I am afraid the simple straight words 'of her British Majestys' English, hardly provided any room for that, and if the appellant entertained any doubt on that score it was for them to present the application here.
10. The settlement was in unqualified terms and the Chairman was fully competent to enter into it.
The signatories from the appellant's side apart from the Chairman were the Chief Manager, three Managers and two Deputy Managers. The appellants are bound under the law to implement the same, and if they have exceeded their limits or transgressed any directions or instructions, it is a matter between the Government and the appellants. They cannot be allowed to wriggle out of their commitments on this plea.
11. In my humble view the appeal is devoid of all merit. I will, therefore, affirm the order and dismiss the appeal.