1992 PLP 1181 (PLC(CS))

3. The first clause of the settlement that the applicants want -this Tribunal to interpret the clause (a) of the item Pay Scales which reads as under:-- "(a) it has been agreed between the parties that the existing Pay Scales will be revised as under:-- Grade Job Nature/Category Scale

1. Unskilled 360--25--735

2. Semi-skilled 430--35--955

3. Skilled 490--40-1090

4. Highly-skilled 600--50--1350

5. Turner/Fitter 720--55--1545 The aforesaid revised Pay Scales shall become effective with effect from 8th April, 1989 to the categories mentioned therein."

4. Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, contends that the workers were doing skilled or semi-skilled work have been put in the category of the unskilled workers. The clause of agreement as reproduced above is absolutely clear and there is no ambiguity which requires interpretation. The dispute as to whether the job of certain workers fell in the category of skilled or unskilled workers, is a question of fact and does not require any interpretation of the aforementioned clause of the agreement. If any workman is doing the work of skilled workman but is being paid the salary of unskilled workman, such workman can individually or collectively move the Labour Court under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 for redress of their grievance.

5. In this connection Mr. Shafiq Qureshi has further submitted that the workers in addition to the salary as may be fixed under the aforementioned agreement are also entitled to the 18% of the so-fixed salary as cost of living allowance under section 3(7) of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973. The right is created under the Act and not under the settlement, I therefore, does not require any interpretation by the Tribunal under section 50 of the I.R.O., 1969. As pointed above the workmen if aggrieved can invoke the aid of the Labour Court for enforcement of their rights, guaranteed or secured under the law.

6. The next clause of the agreement that the applicant wants to interpret is under item `Bonus'. The settlement regarding bonus is reproduced as under:-- "Bonus, it is agreed that company will pay one basic salary including 18% cost of living allowance as a profit bonus for the financial years 1988-89 and 1989-90. ' This bonus shall be subject to profits declared and in complete discharge of the company's liability under Standing Order 10-C of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The company has further agreed to pay the equivalent of three basic salaries as bonus. The three bonuses for the years 1988-89 will be calculated for each worker as per the following formula:-- Formula. Basic salary as on 31st March 1989 X 9 salary as on 30th June. 1989 X

3. The company has agreed to make payment of bonus as payable under 10-C before 30th September of each year. It has further been agreed to make payment of the remaining three months bonus on 4th November of each year. It has been agreed that aforesaid bonus will be paid on pro-rata basis to those workers who have put in more than three months' continuous service but less than twelve months' continuous service during the financial year concerned."

7. Mr. Shafiq Qureshi submits that under the agreement as stated in para. 1, the worker is to get as profit bonus one basic salary including 18% cost of living allowance whereas under Standing Order 10-C he has right to get the bonus which amount shall be not less than the aggregate of one month's wages of the workman employed subject to maximum of 30% of the profits. Under section 4 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 the Standing Order may be modified by a collective agreement provided no such agreement shall have effect of taking away or diminishing any right or benefit to the workmen under the provision of Schedule. Apparently workers feel that by mere payment of basic salary including 18% cost of living allowance they are getting less than bonus under Standing Order 10-C. It will be clear from the terms of the clause as reproduced above that the company agreed to make payment under S.O. 10-C. However, Mr. Muhammad Humayun, appearing for the respondents agrees that in order to allay the fears of the workman, the management agrees to pay the profit bonus as laid down under Standing Order 10-C of the Ordinance, 1968. The clause is, therefore, interpreted accordingly.

8. Mr. Shafiq Qureshi further submits that it may be interpreted that wages as defined under Standing Order 10-C include other allowances besides the cost of living allowance. It will be clear from the terms of the agreement reproduced above that the word `wages' is not used but the word `basic salary' is used in the agreement. However, it is agreed that the workmen would get the bonus under Standing Order 10-C. Section 50 of the I.R.O., 1969 contemplates interpretation of the settlement and not of the law. If the workmen feel that they are not getting bonus in accordance with Standing Order 10-C they have right to approach the Labour Court for the redress of their grievance and the Labour Court can interpret word `wages' as used in the S.O: 10-C and if the appeal is filed in this Tribunal the Tribunal can also interpret the word `wages'.

9. The application is disposed of in the above terms. M.Y.H./1742/Lb.S Petition disposed of.