1987 PLP 413 (PLC)

Iqbal Afridi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd October, 1986. This is an application under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

2. The facts are that the applicant union, a registered trade union of workmen employed by the respondents, namely Pakistan Machine Tools Limited is also a Collective Bargaining Agent in the said establishment. The applicant union entered into and signed a settlement under the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, on 23‑11‑1982, and the said settlement was effective from 23‑3‑1982. During the negotiations and before the said settlement could be arrived at, the Government of Pakistan allowed Dearness Allowance of Rs.45 per cent of basic pay vide office memorandum, dated 17‑6‑1982 issued by the Finance Division of the Government of Pakistan. The dearness allowance was made conditional in this office memorandum. The clause (3) of the Notification is agitated and brought for interpretation under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Paragraph 3 as quoted below is got to be interpreted in view of the settlement: ‑

3. In the case of those of the above employees who are governed by the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the dearness allowance sanctioned under this O.M. shall be subject to the condition that a period of at least one year has elapsed from the date of effectiveness of the agreement or settlement under the said Ordinance that had been reached with the Collective Bargaining Agent or a wage award has been announced and implemented, as the case may be.

3. The settlement, which is at Exh. A‑1, vide clause (xvii) reads as under: ‑ It would be advantageous to quote the last paragraph in the memorandum of settlement: ‑

4. The matter was argued by the learned counsel, Mr. Ch. Rasheed Ahmad and Mr. Iqbal Afridi. The arguments of Mr. Iqbal are that actually the Government Notification is sought for interpretation which is not competent under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The following words of the office memorandum‑‑-shall be subject to the condition that a period of at least one year has elapsed from the date of effectiveness of the agreement or settlement under the said Ordinance that had been reached with the Collective Bargaining Agent or the Wage Award has been announced and implemented, as the case may be, Mr. Iqbal Afridi states that the present settlement came into effect from 23‑3‑1982, which was prior to the promotion of the notification of 17‑6‑1982, therefore, the condition as laid down in paragraph 3 could not be fulfilled. In the agreement/ settlement itself it is provided that whatever the benefits and other monetary gains which are applicable, would be given to the workers. The settlement is, therefore, very clear. There is no embiguity in paragraph 3 of the notification, dated 16‑7‑1982. I am referred to a judgment reported in 1983 P L C 1023. Following paragraph is quoted from the said judgment in this case: ‑ I am conscious of the fact that the view that I have taken does not resolve the real difference between the parties which is whether under the office memorandum referred to above the employees of the respondent corporation are entitled to the benefits conferred by the said O.M. but since this difference of opinion is in respect of the interpretation of the O.M. and not of the interpretation of any term of the settlement in question, I am of the view it would be beyond the scope of section 50 I. R.O. ; to interpret the O. M. in question or its real intention. All that can be said is that a material part of the benefits under the settlement have been given retrospective effect from 1‑7‑1981. In fact in this case, the interpretation of clause (3) of the notification issued by the Government on 17‑6‑1982, is sought, which is not competent under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. There is no ambiguity or difficulty in reading the settlement itself. Therefore, this application is dismissed. M.Y.H./878/Lb Application dismissed.