' This is an application under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, moved by applicant (Fauji Sugar Mills Mazdoor Union (CBA) against the respondent (M/s. Fauji Sugar Mills, Tando Muhammad Khan, Hyderabad), seeking interpretation of sub-clause (b) of clause 6 of Part H at page 2 of the memorandum of settlement, dated 17-6-1996 (effective from 1-9-1995), arrived at between the management (Fauji Sugar Mills, Tando Muhammad Khan) and the then Collective Bargaining Agent) (The Fauji Sugar Mills Employees' Union. The said clause reads as under:- "6. NOW THEREFORE it is clearly understood and agreed by the parties that:-- a) b) THAT the benefits hereby given under this Memorandum of Settlement shall be set-off and adjusted against any benefits of the like nature that accrue to all or any of the workers through the promulgation of any Federal or Provincial Legislation, Enactment or Order to the extent of the quantum of benefits permissible under any law and/or ordinance enforced during the currency of the period of this settlement provided a provision regarding set-off is incorporated in the applicable Legislation, Enactment or Order." (Underlined by me).
2. The necessity for the interpretation appears to have arisen by virtue of section 3-B by Sindh Employees' Special Allowance (Payment) (Amendment) Act, 1995 (Sindh Act No,VIII of 1995) published in Sindh Government Gazette, Extraordinary, dated October, 25, 1995. It was enacted asunder:-- "In addition to the allowance admissible under sections 3 and 3-A every employee irrespective of wages being paid shall in respect of his employment on or after the 1st day of May, 1995 be paid by his employer an Additional Special Allowance equal to 100 Rupees per month."
' The C.B.A. Of the management drew the attention of the respondent to the aforesaid provision of law and asked for the payment to be made in accordance with section 3-11 of Sindh Special Allowance Act, which was refused by the respondent on the ground that the amount payable under the aforesaid provision of law is liable to be set-off against the benefits available under the settlement, dated 17th June, 1996, the matter was then taken up to the Additional Director of Labour.
The respondent, however, on or about 17th of October, wrote to the Additional Director Labour with a copy of the comments of respondent's legal advisor's opining that the above amount is not payable to the workers in view of the settlement, dated 17th June, 1996. The applicant, in its application, inter alia, submitted that the interpretation put on the settlement by the respondent was totally erroneous; hence, it necessitated to file the application under section 50 of the I.R.O.,1969 praying for holding that the settlement does not ask, in any way, to set off the benefits allowed to the workers under the above law, namely sections 3-B of the Sindh Employees (Special Allowance) (Payment) (Amendment) Act, 1995.
3. Mr. Khalid Javed, learned counsel for the respondent, raised certain preliminary objections to the maintainability of the application and other matters. The first of such objections was that no difficulty or doubt arises as to the interpretation of any clause of settlement, as such, the application under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is not maintainable in law.
The submission is misconceived. The matter was argued on two days by the learned counsel for the parties. This very fact is enough to show that there is some doubt or difficulty in interpreting the settlement read with section 3 B of Sindh Employees Special Allowance (Payment) (Amendment)
Act, 1995, It was next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that interpretation has been sought by the applicant regarding sub-caluse (b) of clause (6) of Part II of the.. Settlement which has already expired before the date of the filing of the above application. Hence, the application is not maintainable, having been filed for interpretation of clause of an expired settlement. In support of his plea, reliance was placed by him on a case reported as Agriauto Progressive Labour Union (C.B.A.), Islamabad through General Secretary v. Messrs Agriauto Industries Limited, Deh Mouza Barrot Hub, District Lasbella through Managing Director (1993 PLC 805) by learned Labour Appellate Tribunal Balochistan. It was found to be a case of waiver, which is distinguishable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as there have been constant demand even during the pendency of the settlement by the Collective Bargaining Agent and thereafter. It appears that the cited case went in appeal before High Court of Balochistan which was heard by a Division Bench, reported as Agriauto Progressive Labour Union (C.B.A.), Karachi v. Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Balochistan at Quetta and another (1994 PLC 182) wherein it was, inter alia, observed that the "Labour Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to interpret the settlement or award if any difficulty or doubt arises out of it which for the time being is in existance and not a settlement, which had already lost its life". I have carefully gone through the said judgment. It was observed by the learned Division Bench that, "as far as the claim of the petitioner Union is concerned that relates to the enforcement of rights guaranteed under the Balochistan Employees' Special Allowance Act, 1992, which does not fall within the domain of the Tribunal for the purpose of interpretation and petitioner-Union conveniently could have enforced such rights by invoking the provision of section 6 of the Act. (Perhaps, by making application under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936).
5. Here the main question is for the interpretation of sub-clause (b) of clause (6) of Part II of the settlement as to whether, as asserted by the respondent, the allowance granted by Act, of Rs,100 per month, stood already set-off by the settlement in question or not?
6. The case, cited before me was for the enforcement of guaranteed right for recovery of Special Allowance. Whereas in the instant case, it is a direct question of interpretation of a clause of the settlement; hence the above case is distinguishable.
7. Learned counsel also relied on a case reported as Workers' Union (C.B.A.) v. Messrs Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Ltd., Mirpurkhas (1988 PLC 361) of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, but the facts of the case are quite distinguishable to the instant case before me inasmuch as identical clause was provided in the subsequent settlement superseding the previous settlement; hence, interpretation of identical clause, in previous settlement, was held to have become redundant, which is not the case here.
8. The last case, relied upon by the learned counsel reported as Pak Cigarette Labour Union, Karachi v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd., Karachi (1989 PLC 163) is also of no avail to him. It was, inter alia, observed in the case, cited before me, that the interpretation of ten years' old settlement of 1978 was replaced by subsequent settlement. In the earlier settlement of 1978 interpretation was sought regarding fixation of pay in revised scales and exact increase in conveyance allowance.
Such provisions manifest replacing previous settlement. The interpretation of previous settlement in the circumstance, was held to be rather academic. Whereas in the instant case, the question pertains to the benefits of Rs,100 per month, stood already set off by the settlement in question or not. Which is very much alive even today. The cause of action still continuing.
9. Lastly, learned counsel for the respondent took an objection that the application suffers from laches. Admittedly the application under section 50 was filed in this Tribunal on 28-4-1998.
Apparently there seems to be some weight in the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent. 1, therefore, asked Mr. Ali Amjad, learned counsel for the applicant to explain the delay in filing the above application. It was submitted by him that the settlement was arrived at between the then C.B.A. And the management. The then C.B.A., approached the management claiming the relief of Rs,100 per month under the settlement, which was denied to them. The letter, dated 1-6- 1996 addressed by the Senior Executive (Sugar) to the General Manager, enclosing therewith comments, received from legal advisor vide their note, dated 24-12-1995 in reply to the letter, dated 1-1-1996 and the letter, dated 15-10-1997, addressed to the Additional Director Labour are already on record.
10. Mr. Ali Amjad further submitted that, thereafter some dispute arose between the then C.B.A. And the present applicant the Mazdoor Union. Referendum was held in March, 1997 which proceedings the management got stayed from High Court. Thereafter an application was filed under section 34 of I.R.O., 1969, in the Labour Court whereby assumption of office by the Labour Union under referendum, held on 4-3-1997, was stayed. The stay was, however, vacated on 30-4-1997, as the then General Secretary of the Labour Union was debarred from taking any action in the matter.
There remained, therefore, no option left with the applicant union, but to file this application through Acting General Secretary.
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, in detail, in regard to the circumstances leading to the delay in filing this application, which need not detain me here, as they are the matters on record, leading to several proceedings in the learned Labour Court and the Hon'ble High Court etc., I am of the view that the application, under section 50, does not suffer from laches. In any case, it is condonable in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, narrated during the course of long arguments on the point.
12. After disposing of the preliminary objections. I turn towards the merits of the application itself.
13. The relevant provision of settlement (clause 6(b), Part II), as referred to above, provides that the benefits given under the memorandum of settlement shall be SET OFF and adjusted against any benefits of the like nature that accrue to all or any of the workers through the promulgation of any Federal or Provincial Legislation, Enactenmt or Order to the extent of the quantum of benefits permissible under any law and/or Ordinance enforced during the currency of the period of this settlement provided a provision regarding set-off is incorporated in the applicable Legislation, Enactment or Order. (Underlined by me).
14. So while reading the above clause of the settlement, two things emerge out of it: firstly that the law, ordinance should be enforced during the currency of the period of this settlement, which was to remain in force from 9-9-1995 up to 31-8-1997. The Special Law, hereinbefore referred to as the Act of 1995, published in the Sindh Government Gazette, dated October 25, 1995 was duly in force, and secondly there is a proviso, made at the end of the said clause that the said law enforced during currency of the period of the settlement must provide, "a provision regarding set-off incorporated in the applicable legislation, enactemnt or order". For interpreting the settlement, as above, in the light of the Act, it seems beneficial to reproduce the relevant provisions of section 3-B of the Act, for the sake of ready reference, which reads as under:-- "(2) In the Sindh Employees' Special Allowance (Payment) Act 1986, after section 13A, the following shall be added:--- "(3-B) In addition to the allowances, admissible, under sections 3 and 3-A every employee, irrespective of wages being paid to him, shall in respect of his employment on or after the 1st day of May, 1995, be paid by his employer, an additional special allowance equal to one hundred rupees per month."
(3) The Sindh Employees' Special Allowance (Payment) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1995, is hereby repealed."
15. A plain reading of the relevant provisions is of section 3B of the Act will show that in addition to the allowances admissible, under sections 3 and 3-A every employee, irrespective of wages being paid to him, shall, in respect of his employment on or after the 1st day of May, 1995 be paid by his employer, an additional special allowance equal to one hundred rupees per month". There- is no provision regarding set-off, incorporated in the abovesaid provision of the Act. As such, the assertion of the respondent-management, as incorporated in their letters denying the right to the workers, is not tenable in law. The management appears to have relied on the comments of their legal advisor. I have carefully gone through the said comments/opinions and it has also been expressed in the opinion that, "neighbouring Mills are paying this allowance to the workers"
16. The bone of contention, based on the opinion, as envisaged by the learned counsel for the respondent is that there is a set-off, provided in the settlement as to restrict the maximum financial package to Rs,50 lacs per annum. The stand of the management as well as the submission of the counsel is untenable, both on facts and law, because this set-off is general in nature, speaking of the quantum of financial burden on the management (which may be more or less.) It takes no note of the provision of set-off in the Act or in any enactment in force during the currency of the settlement by the Government, Federal or Provincial.
17. In view of the above discussion, I am clear in my mind that the workers of the respondent-mill are entitled to the benefit of Rs,100 per month as special allowance, as provided by section 3-B of Sindh Employees Special Allowance (Payment) (Amendment) Act, 1995. The reference is accepted and the application is allowed, as prayed.
' Announced in open Court, this on the 15th day of September, 1999.