DECISION ' This application under section 50 of the IRO has been placed before me in the following circumstances: ' The parties had executed a settlement on 20-6-1991 for a term of 2 years from 1-1-1991 to 31-12- 1992. In the recital it was explicitly mentioned that the allowance of Rs,200 per month announced by the Sindh Government "stood set off against the agreement and in case the Government announced any financial increase in the future, such notification of the Government shall be implemented.
2. In the wake of this settlement came Ordinance No, XI of 1991 on 22-8-1991. The petitioners demanded the payment of Rs,200 per month and as there was no redress of their grievances they had taken the matter before the Joint Director, Labour. However, the conciliatory efforts bore fruit resulting in the filing of this application before this Tribunal.
3. The settlement had been brought about after the Sindh Government Employees' Special Allowance (Payment) Act, 1986 had been amended in 1990. However, according to section 3-A of Ordinance No, XI of 1991 further amending the Sindh Employees Special Allowance Act, 1986: "Every employee, irrespective of wages being paid to him, shall, in respect of his employment on or after the 1st day of December, 1990 be paid by his employer an additional special allowance equal to two hundred rupees per month." ' and the change in the law thus gave altogether a new dimension. I have dealt with this aspect in the case of Hakimsons Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Employees' Union v. Hakimsons Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. And come to the conclusion that by virtue of this amendment, the workers could not be denied the benefits of the amendment in the law. I do not think it will be necessary to recapitulate the reasons which led me to this conclusion. I had sought support from Muhammad Moth Khan v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and another PLD 1961 SC 436 and New Jubilee Insurance Company Employees' Union v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal 1982 PLC 1012. Nothing has been said by Mr. Humayun to make me depart from that view.
4. However, Mr. Huinayun had made an application with the prayer that permission be granted to lead further evidence to establish his case. According to him the Special Allowance for the month of December had been paid separately and onwards the said Additional Special Allowance had been merged in the basic pay under the settlement. I am afraid the request is untenable. The settlement has to speak for itself and it leaves no room for any doubt whatsoever.
5. My answer therefore is that the demand of the petitioner for the payment of the Allowances under Ordinance No,XI of 1991 is not open to any exception. Answered accordingly.