1987 PLP 509 (PLC(CS))

S.M. Yaqoob for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th November, 1986. This is an application under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, filed by the applicant union seeking an interpretation of clause 22(d) of a Settlement, dated 20‑1‑1985, arrived at between the C.B.A. Union and the respondent management, namely, Messrs Metropolitan Steel Corporation Ltd., Karachi. 2. Briefly the case of the applicant Union is that under clause 22(d) of the Settlement, it was agreed by the parties that usual holidays will be observed in the company for Shab‑e‑barat and further that if an), festival holiday falls on the day of weekly holiday, the company shall allow substitute holiday or. the next day and in case of two festival holidays, the weekly holiday and the day following shall be holidays. That Eidul Fitr holidays in the year 1985 fell on 19th, 20th and 21st of June, 1935, which were Wednesday, Thursday and Friday and that 21st June 1985 being a Friday, the workers availed a substituted holiday on Saturday, i.e. the 22nd June, 1985, but this holiday was not accepted by the respondent corporation which had treated the absence of the workers on 22‑6‑1985, as a strike and had deducted the wages of the workers. The applicant union protested to the respondent corporation against this breach of the settlement on 27‑6‑1985 which was rejected by the respondent corporation on 2‑7‑1985. That being aggrieved, the applicant union approached the Labour Directorate where the parties failed to come to an agreement. Thereafter, the applicant union had come to this Tribunal praying for an interpretation of clause 22(d) of the Settlement, dated 20‑1‑1985, hence, this application, under section 50, I.R.O., 1969. 3. A Notice of this application was issued to the respondent corporation. The respondent corporation resisted the application and had submitted that 19th, 20th and 21st of June, 1985 were declared as Eidul Fitr holidays, vide Corporation's Circular, dated 18‑6‑1985 and that 22nd of June, 1986 was scheduled to be a working day, but the applicant union demanded for holiday on the 4th day i.e. on 22‑6‑1985 under the plea of clause 22(d) of the said agreement, resulting in that the most of the workers of the factory as well as the workers of the Head Office did not report for duty on 22‑6‑1985. That this absence of the workers on 22‑6‑1985 clearly amounted to an illegal strike. That during the negotiations between the parties at the time of signing the agreement /settlement on 20‑1‑1985, it was the principle which was agreed upon between them that substitution of a single festival holiday falling on a Friday shall be done and no such substitution shall be done if there were other festival holiday in conjunction with the Friday festival holiday and this principle was attempted to be incorporated in the relevant clause of the agreement though not so much in details. 4. I have heard Mr. Ali Amjad, learned Advocate for the applicant union and Mr. S. M. Yaqoob, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent Corporation and have carefully perused clause 22(d) of the agreement/ settlement, dated 20‑1‑1985 and other documents brought on record by the parties. Clause 22(d) of the said settlement is reproduced below:‑ 5. There is an admitted position that according to clause 22(d) of the settlement, dated 20‑1‑1985, it was clearly and specifically agreed upon between the parties that usual holidays will be observed in the corporation and that if any festival holiday falls on the day of weekly holiday, the corporation shall allow substitute holiday on the next day and in case of two festival holidays, the weekly holiday and the day following shall be holidays. There is nothing on record to prove that substitution of a single festival holiday falling on a Friday shall be done and no such substitution shall be done if there were other festival holidays in conjunction with the Fridays festival holiday. There is no need to incorporate further details in clause 22(d) of the Settlement/ agreement, dated 20‑1‑1985. I would, therefore, hold, by interpreting clause 22(d) of the Settlement/ Agreement, dated 20‑1‑1985, that the workers of the respondent corporation were entitled to leave on 22‑6‑1985 in substitution of the festival holiday falling on the weekly holiday, i.e. Friday, 21‑6‑1985 and that the respondent corporation has no right to treat this absence of the workers on 22‑6‑1985, as a strike) and to unilaterally deduct their salaries/wages. 6. Clause 22(d) of the Settlement/ Agreement arrived at between Metropolitan Steel Corporation Mazdoor Mafad Tanzeem and the I management of Messrs Metropolitan Steel Corporation Ltd., Karachi on 20‑1‑1985, is interpreted accordingly. A.Y.H./896/Lb.??????????????????????? Order accordingly.