This is an application by the Employees' Union under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for the interpretation of the Award given by the learned Sind Labour Court No. III, as modified by this Tribunal.
2. The Award in question deals with 16 demands made by the applicant Union. We are, however, in these proceedings concerned with only 3 of the demands, namely :-(1) payment of Rs. 10 to each worker is annual increment ; (2) arrears of increase in waves of Rs. 5 per month per worker for the years 1974, 1975 and 1975 ; and (3) money compensa--tion in lieu of non-supply of uniforms to workmen entitled to such uniforms.
3. The learned Labour Court did not allow the demand for extra uniforms, but directed that the existing practice should continue. The decision on this demand was not challenged by any party.
The learned Labour Court. However, allowed an increase in wages of Rs. 30 per workman per month and additionally allowed an annual increment of Rs. 10 per worker. The Tribunal on appeal disallowed the increase in wages but confirmed the annual increment of Rs.
10. Both the learned Labour Court and the Tribunal allowed the demand of increase of Rs. 5 per month in wages to each worker as per last settlement, which was signed on 27th January, 1974.
4. I have heard Mr. Shafiq Qureshi for the applicant and Mr. Masood Mirza for the respondent. Mr. Masood Mirza stated that uniforms are being supplied to entitled workmen according to the established practice. He, 'however, conceded that it is possible that during a particular year the workmen may not have been supplied uniforms He accordingly submitted that the Management would be prepared to make an ex gratia payment of Rs. 100 to each workman entitled for the grant of uniforms. This proposal is acceptable to Mr. Shafiq Qureshi. I consider this arrangement satisfactory and direct that such payment be made to the workmen within 15 days from the date of this Order.
5. As regards the demand of increase in wages by an amount of Rs. 5 per month, as per settlement dated 27th January, 1974, both the learned Labour Court and the Tribunal have allowed the same.
This increase is different from the annual increment of Rs. 10, which has also been granted by the Labour Court and confirmed by the Tribunal. I, therefore, clarify that the respondent shall pay, as per Award and the Order of the Tribunal Rs. 5 per month to each worker as increase in wages with effect from 1st July, 1974, onwards.
6. As regards the annual increment of Rs. 10 per month, the demand of the applicant did not specify the date from which the incre--ment was payable. The Labour Court has also in its order not specified the date from which it is payable. The Tribunal also did not consider the question as to the date from which it was due and payable. Mr, Shafique Qureshi, however, referred me to the directions in the Award that it was enforceable from 1st January, 1977, and from this he wanted me to construe the provisions in regard to the annual increment as being due from 1st January, 1977. I regret that I see no force in this conten--tion. No doubt the annual increment, after 1st January, 1977, was to be paid at the rate of Rs. 10, as provided in the Award. But, the annual increment would obviously fall on the due date, i.e., after a worker hats completed 12 months service or deemed to have completed such period. There is nothing in the Award to indicate that the increment was to be paid even before the worker had completed or was deemed to have completed 12 months service. The earlier agreements between the Management and the Employees' Union, particularly the last settlement dated 27th January, 1974, specifically provided that the annual increment would be payable from 1st July, 1974. It thus appears that for the purpose of calculating annual increment, the year was to end on the 30th June. Therefore, the annual increment of Rs, 10 is payable from 1st of July every year.