DECISION This is an application under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordi--nance.
2. Kohinoor Chemical Workers' Union raised an industrial dispute by presenting a charter of demands dated 8th of January, 1974. It was indicated in this charter of demands that during the last 2J years there had been abnor--mal and unprecedented rise in the cost of living and the relief announced by the Government had not offsetted the increase in the prices and the rise of the cost of living and, therefore, it was requested that the just and reasonable expectation of the employees may be fulfilled. It may be noted here that the relief granted by the Government had reference to the cost of living allowed by the Government by the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973 where--by Rs. 35 per month lead been granted. The Management was reluctant to accept the demands. A strike notice dated 25-2-1974 under section 26,
1. R.O. was served. Since there was no agreement conciliation proceedings were resumed but failed on 2-3-1974. The workers went to strike on 25-3-1974. Subsequently the Labour Directorate intervened and various meting were held.
On 29-2-1974 a settlement was reached and it was signed by both the parties. According to the settlement various reliefs including the increase in wages were allowed. It was, however, not indicated as to whether the reliefs had been granted due to the cost of living.
3. Subsequently the Employees Cost of Living Act was amended in 1974 whereby an additional benefit of Rs. 50 p. m. as a relief for cost of living was allowed. The announcement to that effect was made by the Federal Min1ster on 8-6-1974 while the Ordinance was issued on 7-9-1974.
4. It appears that as a result of the announcement made by the Min1ster, the employees made demand for the additional benefits. Since the Manage--ment did not agree the Directorate of Labour intervened and a settlement dated 2g-8-1974 was reached without prejudice to the claim of either party. It was made clear that this was an ad hoc payment subject to adjustment according to law to be enacted by the Government. On 3-10-1974 the Direc. for of Labour interpreted the settlement dated 24-4-1974 at the request of the parties as indicated in the documents signed by him. He entertained the view that the benefits allowed under the settlement could not be adjusted towards the cost of living benefit granted by the Cost of Living (Amendment)
Act, 1974. The Management continued to pay the amount allowed by the Employees' Cost of Living Act, 1974 without any exception to the view expres--sed by the Director of Labour. However, on 2-6- 1975 the Management made the present application challenging the view taken by the Director and maintaining that the reliefs allowed by the settlement dated 24-4-1974 were towards the cost of living and liable to be adjusted under the Amending Act of 1974.
5. The Union res1sted the claim of the Management and it has been asserted that it was never the intention to provide the relief for the cost of living and therefore, could not be adjusted.
6. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I am of the view that this is not a pure question of the interpretation of the settlement in order to attract the provisions of section 50 of the I. R. O. but it is a question of intention which has necessarily to be gathered from the various other documents and the conduct of the parties. Indeed in the charter of demands it is clearly indicated that the various reliefs were being sought on account of cost of living and this is an important factor which should be taken into consideration in gathering the intention but at the same tine, apart from the fact that there is no indication in the settlement itself, the interpreta-- tion was given by the Director and to this no exception was taken by the Management. Of course certain statements made by the Director are not supported by tile record and he had no power to interpret the settlement and could not assume jurisdiction even by consent of the parties when the law did not confer the jurisdiction upon him and, therefore, this Tribunal is com--petent to ignore the view taken by the Director but all the same it cannot be ignored that the parties acted upon the interpretation given by the Director and the Management continued to pay the additional benefits without having taken any step to assail it. It, therefore, becomes a matter for serious consideration whether the intention to grant the benefits under the settlement of 24-4-1974 were intended as a relief for the cost of living or not or despite the relief for additional benefits was conceded. No sufficient explanation has been offered by the Management for the undue delay in approaching this Tribunal. Both the parties have also filed affidavits by way of evidence. So it is not possible to ascertain the intention of the parties without assessing the implica--tion of the aforesaid documents. This cannot be the function of this Tribunal but this can be resolved by approaching.
Labour Court under section 34 of the I. R. O.
7. In the result the reference is incompetent and is dismissed.