DECISION This is an application under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance for interpretation of paras. 6 and 1 I of the Settlement dated the 6th of May, 1974. These two paras read as under:- With regard to Demand No. 18 pertaining to revision of wages, it has been agreed between the parties as under:-
(a) All Chowkidars, Waiter, Glass Boys and Shop Ass1stants working in the various bars and shops of the Company, and labourers working at the Bonded Warehouse of the Company, who on 31-3-1974 were drawing Rs. 158 (Rs One hundred fifty-eight) as monthly wages will be given an annual increment of Rs. 8 (Rs. eight) in their respective wages with effect from 1st April 1974; (b) In addition to the annual increment in wages as mentioned in clause (a) above, all such Chowki--dars, Waiters and Glass Boys as are covered by the said clause (a) above, will be given a special allowance of Rs. 14 (Rs. Fourteen) per month which will not form part of the wages and will be adjusted and/or set-off against any payment/amount which may become payable by the Company during one year from the date of signing of this Settlement for whatsoever reason under any law whether by way of increase in wages or otherwise. This Special Allowance will be in addition to the Cost of Living Allowance of Rs. 35; (c) In addition to the annual increment in wages as mentioned in clause (a) above, all such Shop Ass1stants and labourers working at the Bonded Warehouse as are covered by the clause (a) above, will be given a Special Allowance of Ra. 34-(Rs.
Thirty-four) per month which will not form part of their wages and will be adjusted and/or set-off against any payment/amount which may become payable by the company during the one year from the date of signing of this Settlement, for whatsoever, reason under any law, whether by way of increase of wages or otherwise. This Special Allowance will be in addition to the Cost of Living Allowance of Rs. 35.
11. With regard to Demand No. 31 pertaining to enhancement in wages, it has peen agreed between the parties that enhancement in wages based on length of service as mentioned hereunder will be given to only those categories of whole-time workers who were benefited by the West Pakistan Minimum Wages for Unskilled Workers Ordinance 1969 and who as on 31-3-1974 were drawing monthly wages of Rs. 158 (Rs. One hundred fifty-eight) :- Up to 5 years Nil Over 5 years and up to 10 yearsPl 6 p. m.
Over 10 years and up to 15 yearsRs. 8 p. m.
Over 15 years Rs. 10 p. m.
The above special enhancement will be added to the monthly wages of the respective workers in accordance with their entitlement. This amount of enhancement will be effected for the 1st April, 1974"
After the promulgation of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Ordi--nance of 1974 allowing cost of living allowance equal to Rs. 50 p. m. or 10 of the monthly wages whichever was more to a worker whose wages did not exceed Rs. 1,000 or at such rate as together with wages made a total of Rs.
1,000 p. m. if the wages exceeded Rs. 1,000 on the basis of this Ordinance the workers claimed bonus but the Management contended that the increase granted by way of settlement was adjustable. Since there was no agreement the present reference was made by the Management.
The learned counsel for the Union raised a preliminary objection that this reference was not maintainable as such a reference could only be made by a Labour Court and not by any party I find no force in this contention as there is nothing in the provision of law supporting the contention.
2. Taking up clause 6 of the Settlement it is clear that the grant of special allowance did not form part of the wages and is liable to be adjusted against any amount which may become payable under any law whether by way of increase in wages or otherwise It appears that this special allowance was granted on account of the cost of living, In view of the agreement the workers cannot be allowed to say that adjustment sought- to be made by the Management could not be permitted.
3. So far as clause (11) of the Settlement is concerned there is nothing to indicate that the increase in wages was granted with an intention to compen--sate the workers for the increase in the cost of living. In case that had been-- the intention there is no reason why a similar provision as was done in case of clause (6), was not made. Consequently no adjustment on this ground can, be allowed.