1990 PLP 258 (PLC)

AJMAL MIAN, C.J.‑‑This petition is directed against the order dated 18‑10‑1981, passed by learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal upon an application under section 50 of I.R.O., filed by respondent 2, for interpretation of settlement dated 10‑6‑1981, as to the liability to the demand of cost of living allowance under subsection (4) of section 3 of the Employee's Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973, which was added by Ordinance No. 32 of 1980, gazetted on 26‑0‑1980. The learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal has held in the impugned order that the benefit as to the increase in the wages under the above settlement (hereinafter referred to as the settlement) is liable to be adjusted. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present petition. In support of the above petition, Choudhary Rashid Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently urged that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the other terms of the settlement which indicated that the increase in the cost of living but factually the petitioner has made certain promises as to the increase in the production etc. In order to appreciate the above contention, it may be advantageous to reproduce subsection (4) of section 3 of the Act, which provides as follows:‑‑ "3(4). In addition to the cost of living allowance admissible under subsections (1) and (2) or, as the case may be subsection (3), if any, every employee whose wages do not exceed one thousand and five hundred rupees, shall in respect of his employment, on or after the first day of July, 1980, whether on time‑work or piece‑work basis, be paid by his employer a cost of living allowance equal to Rs.40 (Rupees forty only) per month. Provided that the said cost of living allowance shall be set off. (a) against the amount payable under an agreement of settlement reached, or an award given under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969) which has been announced and become effective on or after the 1st day of January, 1980 or which is announced and becomes effective within a period of one year of the commencement of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief Amendment) Ordinance, 1980, and (b) against the amount payable under an award given under the Newspaper Employees' (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973 (LVII of 1973), which becomes effective from the fifteenth day of April, 1980:' A plain reading of the above subsection indicates that it provided benefit to every employee whose wages do not exceed Rs.1,500 in respect of his employment on or after 1st day of July, 1980, a cost of living allowance equal to Rs.40 per month. However, the proviso to the above subsection inter alia provides that against the amount payable under an agreement or settlement reached or an award given under the I.R.O., 1969, which has been announced and became effective on or after the first day of January, 1980, the payment on account of cost of living under such settlement or award would be set off against the amount payable under subsection (4) of section 3 of the Act. The above provision has been subject‑matter of a recent case before the Honourable Supreme Court, namely, in the case of R.B. Industries Ltd. v. Employees' Welfare Union and another reported in P L D 1983 S C 15 wherein it has been held that an employee cannot get double payment of the cost of living allowance but is entitled to a difference in case under the settlement or an award the amount payable is less than the amount granted under the provisions of the Act. Having dealt with the relevant provisions of the Act, we may refer to clause (b) of the settlement which provides that the management has further agreed in order to give relief to the workers due to high cost of living, to revise pay scales and grades of certain categories of workers as follows:‑‑ (i)???????? Unskilled Grade Rs.140‑15‑290 (ii)??????? Semi‑skilled Grade Rs.170‑18‑350 (iii)?????? Skilled Grade‑1 Rs.180‑21‑390 (iv) Skilled Grade‑2 Rs.300‑24‑640 (v)??????? Skilled Grade‑3 Rs.440‑27‑710 It is, therefore, evident that the increase in the wages was on account of increase in the cost of living. However, Mr. Ch. Rashid 7hmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to sub‑paragraph (3) of the clause (e) at page 6 of the settlement under the caption "Miscellaneous", wherein the following was provided: "In token of the acceptance of the aforesaid demands by the Management, the Union/Workers undertake to contribute the harmonious relationship to avoid any industrial unrest to achieve the corporate objectives of increasing production with minimum wastage and higher profitability so as to enable the Management to fulfil the aforesaid terms of the settlement." On the basis of the above paragraph, it has been vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the increase in the wages was inter alia on account of promise made by the Union/Workers to contribute the harmonious relationship, to avoid any industrial unrest and to achieve the corporate objectives of increasing production with minimum wastage and higher profitability. In our view, the above clause does not change the above factual and legal position. If the payment of increased wages would have been linked with the increase in the production, the above contention might have some force. It cannot be denied by the petitioner that notwithstanding any decrease in the production the workmen would have been entitled to enforce the payment of increased wages under the settlement. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the impugned order of the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal is in consonance with the provision of law and the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case referred to hereinabove. The above petition has, therefore, no merit and it is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs. M.Y.H./P‑117/K???????? Petition dismissed.