1989 PLP 1016 (PLC(CS))

S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Respondent. Date of hearing: 31st October, 1988. This is a reference under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called Ordinance), by applicants, Messrs United Paints (Pv1.) Limited, Karachi. 2. The applicants had entered into a settlement on 17‑4‑1986.' with the respondent who is the Collective Bargaining Agent for the workmen employed by the applicants. This settlement was effective from 1‑1‑1986 to 31‑12‑1987. Clause V(A) of this settlement provided as under:‑‑ "V. Provident Fund and Gratuity: (A) The !management pointed out that the existing Provident Fund Scheme was enforced by mutual agreement in lieu of gratuity, hence the present demand was without justification. However, as a gesture of good‑will the management has also agreed to pay 20 days wages on resignation or death or retirement for each completed year of service as gratuity." Clause (B) of the general conditions of the settlement provides as under:‑‑ "(B) This settlement shall be deemed to have come into operation with effect from 1‑1‑1986 and shall remain in force upto 31‑12‑198.7." 3. A question had arisen whether if any worker who died, resigned or retired from service after 31‑12‑1987, was entitled to relief in terms of Clause V(A) of the settlement read with clause (B)‑General, therefore,. this reference has been made. In fact interpretation of clause (B) General, is sought from this Court as there is no ambiguity with regard to the terms of clause V(A). 4. Mr. S.P. Lodhi, learned representative of the respondents has raised preliminary objection to the effect that the reference has not been properly presented as required under section 4) of the Ordinance. Section 49 deals with the representation of the parties in industrial disputes. Reliance is placed on the case of Syed Muhammad Hussain v. Messrs Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. and another, reported in P L D 1980 S C: page 80. In the above case their Lordships have interpreted word "himself' used in section 25‑A(1). Their Lordships have held that this word does not involve concept of agency, and the grievance notice served by the Advocate on behalf of his client was held not in confirmity with the requirement of law. It may be pointed out that this reference is not a grievance under section 25‑A, but a reference under section 50 of the Ordinance where no such word "himself" is introduced. Under subsection (3) of section 49, a party to the industrial dispute may be represented by a legal practitioner in any' proceedings before the Labour Court with a permission of the Court. The fact that the reference was accepted and admitted would imply permission by the Tribunal within the meaning of subsection (3) of section 49 of the Ordinance. I do not find any force in this contention. 5. Mr. S.P. Lodhi, submitted that the 2 clauses of settlement of which interpretation is sought by the applicants are very clear and unambiguous and required no interpretation. It is further submitted that according to the terms of settlement it was in force upto 31‑12‑1987, but, this application has been made on 20‑6‑19&g viz., after more than 6‑1/2 months from the date when the settlement under clause (B) (General) ceased to be in force. It appears, though it is not clear L that some workmen have claimed certain relief under clause V(A) even after 31‑12‑1987. The question whether any relief can be given to such workmen depends upon the fact as to whether after 31‑12‑1987 the parties have acted upon the settlement and also interpretation of certain provisions of law including subsection (2) of section 40 of I.R.O. 1969. Thus, it is a mixed question of fact and law. The proper forum to decide such mixed question of fact and law would be Labour Court when any labourer seeks redress of his grievance or enforcement of clause V(A) of the settlement in a grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, or if the C.B.A. seeks enforcement of the said settlement under section 34 of I.R.O. 1969. In a case reported 1975 P L C page 635, this Tribunal ha, held that a mixed question of fact and law cannot be made subject‑matter of an application under section 50 of I.R.O. 1969. In a case reported in 1975 P L C page 743, this Tribunal dismissed the application under section 50, I.R.O. where the terms of the settlement were clear and there was no legitimate difficulty or doubt regarding their interpretation. In the case of Alpha Insurance Employees Union v. Alpha Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 1978 P L C 367, this Tribunal has held that the power of this Tribunal is confined to the interpretation of a settlement and it cannot go into 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 interpreted. 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.O. for the enforcement of the claim under the alleged settlement. Reliance is also placed on 1975 S C M R 485. 6. In the instant case also the question for consideration is as to whether the settlement in question is in existence viz. in force after 31‑12‑1987. The settlement clearly shows that it will be in force upto 31‑12‑1987. Mr. Suleman Habibullah, the learned counsel for the applicants wants the decision of the Court by way of interpretation of the settlement under section 50 to the effect that under subsection (2) of section 40, I.R.O. 1969, the settlement ceased to have any force after the (late mentioned therein viz., 31‑12‑1987. 7. As pointed out above, if the Union wants enforcement of this settlement after the said date, the proper forum to adjudicate upon such question hold the Labour Court so also in the case of workers if they move any grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. for enforcement of any claim under clause V(A) of the said settlement after 31‑12‑1987. In my opinion, the language of the two clauses is so clear that no interpretation is required. Therefore, this application under section 50, I.R.O. 1969 is not maintainable and is dismissed. A.E./1340/Lb. S Application dismissed.