DECISION ' This is an application filed by the Union under section 50, I. R., 0. For interpretation of the alleged agreement dated 2nd October, 1976, which reads as under :- "Minutes of The Meeting Held Between The Alpha Insurance Company Limited and Alpha Insurance Employees' Union on 2nd October, 1976 at The Office of Alpha insurance Company Ltd. {{TABLE}} Representing Employers :
1. Mr. V. C. Consalves, General Manager & Secretary
2. Mr. G. F. D' Costa, Manager Representing Workers t 1. Mr. Francis Xavier Fernandes, President 2, Mr. Francis Fernandes, Vice-President
3. Mr. Ali Mohammad, Treasurer
4. Mr. Mohd. Yusuf Lodhi, Committee Member {{TABLE}} ' After some discussion the Collective Bargaining Agents of the Workmen agreed to withdraw their demand for a compromise of the 10 Coat of Living Allowance and await a Court decision on this matter. They however, were demanding the sum of Rs, 50,000 to be apportioned among Head Office staff only which the Management did not agree to. After some discussion the figure accepted for Head Office Workmen only was Rs, 45,003 per annum. The apportionment of this amount was to be submitted to the Management for approval."
2. The application was opposed on the ground that it was not a settlement but only minutes of the meeting which was held between the parties.
3. Considering the contentions raised by the parties, it is plain enough that it is not a case of interpretation of any settlement, but the main question is whether the aforesaid agreement amounted to settlement or these were the minutes of the meeting which was held between the parries. The power of this Tribunal is confined to the interpretation of a settlement and it cannot go into the question regarding the existence or non-existence of a settlement. 'There is no ambiguity in the language which has been used in the aforesaid alleged agreement which may require to be resolved or interpereted. In case the Union entertains the view that this was a settlement and the workers were entitled to the amount shown therein, the proper course for the Union was to have approached the Labour Court under section 34, I. R.
0. For the enforcement of the claim under the alleged settlement. It will be then for the Labour Court to decide whether it was a settlement or the minutes of the meeting. As contended by the parties, and in case the Labour Court entertains the view that it was a settlement, the Labour Court is competent to grant the relief.
4. In result the reference is incompetent and is, therefore, dismisse.