DECISION This is an application under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance for interpretation of the settlement dated 17th June 1974.
2. The Union raised an industrial dispute by serving a charter of demands. The settlement was reached on 17th June 1974 to be effective from 1 June 1974. Certain financial benefits were allowed.
The last para, of the settlement which is sought to be interpreted reads as under ---This is agreed that if, during the validity of this agreement the Government of Pakistan announces any financial benefits or increments to the employees or workers, the Union agrees to the right of the Management to adjust that with increase given under this settlement with the monetary rise given by the Government.---
3. Finance Minister of Government of Pakistan made an announcement during; his budget speech delivered on 8th June 1974 in respect of Cost of Living Allowance payable to the employees w.e.f.
The same date anti notifica--tion to that effect would follow. On the basis of this announcement the Union approached the Management in the month of July 1974 for ad hoc payment of Cost of Living Allowance as announced by the Finance Minister. This was agreed to by the Management and agreement to that effect was recorded in Urdu duly signed by both the parties. A notice dated 19th July 1974 was also affixed by Management on, the notice board. This notice was in English and reads as under: - ---As requested by the workers through their Union, it is agreed between the Management and the Union that Rs. 50 (Rupees fifty only) per month per worker is being paid on an ad hoc (Advance) basis, subject to the directions and rules in the Notification to be published under the budget announced. Both the parties, i.e., Management and the Union shall abide by the Gazette rulings. Inst case the adjustment is to be made in which the Labour will be required, to return the amount of this advance payment, it is clearly understood that the amount will be returned in to equal instalments and the first instalment will be deducted immediately in the first wages payment after the publication of the Notification and the second instalment in the next month after the Notification and will not be recovered in more than to instalments. This is also without prejudice to the agreement with the Union.
4. The above notice does not depict the correct picture of what had been agreed upon. I, therefore, translate the agreement as under: - On the application of all the workers of Celluko Industries, Karachi through Secretary of the People's Labour Union it has been unanimously agreed between the Management and the Union as under with regard to the payment of the cost of living allowance of Rs. 50 per month as declared by the Government of Pakistan and this will be binding on the Management, office-bearers of the Union and all workmen.
(1) Rs. 50 per month be paid immediately to all the workers as advance, provided instructions for payment of this cost of living allowance are issued in the Gazette of the _ Government of Pakistan.
It is also agreed that the Management and the Union with all the workmen bind themselves to abide by the terms and conditions to be laid down by the Gazette Notification.
(2) If according to any term or condition laid down by the Gazette Notification the workers are liable to return the amount or any part thereof, it would be recovered in to instalments. First instalment will be adjusted from the pay of the month in which the Gazette Notification is issued and the second instalment would be adjusted from the pay of the second month.
(3) A settlement had already been reached between the Management and the Union on 17th June 1974. Consequently the amount of Rs. 50 per month shall have no effect on the previous settlement.
There is no connection between the to.
5. Subsequently, Employees' Cost of Living Allowance Amended Act, 1974 was passed and published in the Extraordinary Gazette, dated 10th September 1974. Section 8 of the aforesaid Act is relevant. It reads as under: - ---Saving of certain rights and privileges.-Nothing in this Act shall affect any right or privilege to which an employee was entitled,---
(a) in the case of the cost of living allowance payable under subsec--tion (1) of section 3, immediately before th: commencement of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Ordinance, 1973 (XXII of 1973), or
(b) in the case of the cost of living allowance payable under subsection (2) of section 3, immediately before the commencement of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) (Amendment)
Act, 1974, under any law for the the being in force or under any award, decision, agreement, settlement, contract, custom or urage in force immediately before such commencement: Provided that, if, at any the commencing on or after the first day of August 1973 but preceding the commencement of the said Ordinance or, as the case may be, commencing at or after the commencement of the said Ordinance but preceding the commencement of the Employees' Cost of-- Living (Relief) (Amendment) Act, 1974, any employer has paid, or become liable to pay, whether by virtue of an award, decision, agree--ment, settlement, contract, custom or usage, to any employee, in r1apect of any period, any sum of money, which is intended to provide relief due to a rise in the cost of living, such employer shall not be required to pay to such employee in respect of such period any amount in excess of the difference, if any, between the amount so paid by him or the amount which he has so become liable to pay, and the cost of living allowance payable to such employee.
Explanations.-For the purposes of this proviso, any increase in wages accruing by virtue of the usual annual increment or promotion to a higher grade, or an allowance not specifically given to provide relief due to a rise in the cost of living, shall not be deemed to be an increase intended to provide relief due to a rise in the cost of living.---
6. The Management had been paying the amount of Rs. 50 per month as per agreement dated 19th July 1974 and it was paid up to January 1975 but the Management intended to adjust the amount on the basis of the Proviso to the section but this was not agreed to by the Union.
Consequently, the Management made the present reference.
7. At the outset of the arguments I asked the learned counsel for the Management as to which of the financial benefits were intended to be adjusted by the Management. He confined himself to clauses Nos. 4, 6, 9 and 10, which read as under: ---(4) General Wage Increase.-Management has agreed to give general wage increase to workers employed on daily wages at 50 paisas per day per worker. In case of fixed salaried employees, an overall rise of Rs. 13 per month has been agreed by the Management. This wage increase will be available only to those workers and employees who have completed one year service on the date this agreement comes into effect.
(6) Washing Allowance.-The Management had agreed to pay Rs. 2 per head per month as washing allowance for uniform to those workers and employees who have been provided with uniforms. The Union guarantees and assures that these employees and workers who have been supplied with uniform, would attend their duty in uniform only and in cases where uniform is not being properly used, the allowance and future supply of uniform in respect of such workers or employees would be withdrawn.
(9) Attendance Allowance.-All workers including those who are being paid Rs. 5 per bead per month as attendance allowance. The Manage--ment has agreed to increase this amount to Rs.
12.50 per head per month in respect of daily wage workers, with the following conditions, viz.:
(a) That a worker remaining absent for 3 days with authorised leave would be entitled for this allowance and any worker remaining absent for more than 3 days even with authorised leave would forfeit the same.
(b) Any worker who absents himself even for one day without an authorised leave shall forfeit the allowance.
(c) Any worker arriving late for 15 minutes for more than 3 days in a month will forfeit his attendance allowance.
(10) Conveyance Allowance.-The workers are being paid Rs. 5 per head per month as conveyance allowance. The Management has agreed to increase the same to Rs. 10 per heard per month in respect of all workers only who were previously entitled for conveyance allowance of Rs. 5 as well as fixed salaried workers except those who are availing of company's transport.---
8. On consideration of the arguments advanced before me in the light of section 8 of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, I am of the view that the contention of the Management cannot be supported. Proviso to section 8 requires that reduction can be allowed only if the earlier relief guaranteed by the Management was intended to provide relief due to a rise in the cost of living. This must be read with the explanation which lays down A that an allowance not specifically given to provide relief due to a rise in the cost of living, shall not be deemed to be an increase intended to provide relief due to a rise in the cost of living. There is nothing in the settlement that the aforesaid benefits were allowed due to the rise in the cost of living. Not only this but even the perusal of the aforesaid financial benefits do not support the Management. Clause 4 refers to general wage increase and this was allowed only to those workers and employees who had completed one year of service on the date the agreement came into effect. Apparently no relief was granted to the workers who had put in less than one year in service. 1t is, therefore, evident that the increase in pay was not granted due to the rise in the cost of living. Clause No. 6 relates to washing allowance but this to was granted to those workers who were supplied with the uniforms and not to all workers. Clause No. 8 is in respect of heat allowance and this to was confined to a particular class of workers. Similarly attendance allowance as per clause 9 and conveyance allowance as per clause 10 were also confined to certain categories of workers. It is, therefore, plain that these benefits were not extended to all the workers. So it is not possible to presume that they had been granted as a relief due to rise in the cost of living.
9. Moreover, although the last para of the first settlement conferred the right of adjustment upon the Management but clause 3 of the second agreement clearly excluded it as it was stated in unmistakable terms that the amount of Rs. 50 as cost of living allowance would not affect the previous settlement and there was no connection between the to This very clause repels the contention of the Management that the relief granted by the previous settlement was liable to be adjusted.