1992 PLP 770 (PLC(CS))

(a) against the amount payable as a relief due to rise in the cost of living under an agreement or settlement reached ...........................................

4. The question as to whether the increases in certain allowances of employees made under the two settlements can be considered as a relief due to rise in the cost of living or not is a mixed question of fact and law which will be within the domain of the Trial Court to decide and therefore, I will refrain from giving any opinion on this issue.

5. The only question that requires consideration is whether under the terms aforementioned clause of agreement the parties agreed that the increases in various, allowances etc. made under the settlement were to he set off against the increases that may be awarded under the law?

6. The aforementioned clause of agreement can easily be divided into two parts as under:- "(a) The benefits covered by this settlement will not be compounded with similar ones stipulated by any law which may be introduced during the course of this settlement. (b) In the event of which a law being implemented, the Management's additional obligations, if any, will be to provide for the difference between the benefits already in effect under this settlement in favour of workmen, and the benefits given law."

7. The word `Compound' is not defined under any labour law. In Black's Law Dictionary word `Compound' is defined as under:- "To compromise; to effect a composition with a creditor, to obtain discharge from a debt by a smaller sum. To put together elements, ingredients, or parts, to form a whole, to combine, to unite. To form or make up as a composite product, by combining different elements, ingredients, or parts, as to combine a medicine." Word 'Compound' has been defined in the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary to mean:-- 'To make up; to combine: to settle or adjust by agreement; to agree for a consideration not to prosecute (a felony); to intensify; make worse or greater ............................................................................................ Word `Compound' has been defined in the book `Words and Phrases' Permanent Edition, Volume 8 at page 431 inter alia to mean:- "To put together as element, ingredients or parts to form a whole, to combine, unite, to form or make up as a composite product by combining different elements, ingredients or parts as to compound a medicine."

8. If these meanings of word `compound' are taken into consideration, the first part would clearly show that benefits covered by settlement would not be united or combined or compounded with similar ones stipulated by any law which may be introduced during the course of settlement. In other words under this part of the clause of agreement the increases under the agreement would not be set off against similar increases stipulated by law which may be introduced during the course of settlement. However under the second part of this clause it is clearly shown that the management's obligation, if any, will be to provide for difference between benefits already given under settlements and the benefits given by law. These two clauses apparently contradict each other.

9. Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani has relied upon the decision of learned Single Judge of Sindh High Court Karachi Bench reported in PLD 1977 Karachi 586--Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd., Karachi v. Pak. Cigarette Labour Union and another wherein it was held that there was no bar in law, in taking into consideration, all the available evidence including that which is extraneous to settlement deed for decision of the question as to the nature of the bonus granted thereunder. It may be pointed out that in the aforesaid decision, decision of the Labour Court under section 34 of I.R.O., 1969, was considered with regard to the liability of the employer to pay bonus under the Standing Order 10-C of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 to the workers of the union in addition to any other bonus payable under the terms of settlement between the parties. In that case evidence was led by both the parties and the document with regard to settlement was considered and interpreted in the light of the evidence led by the parties because the intention of the parties was not clearly spelt out from the instrument viz. Agreement or Settlement. Ire the instant case no such evidence has been led.

10. On plain reading of this clause of agreement it will be seen that it can be held that parties intended not to compound or in other words not to set off the benefits granted under the settlement against the benefits that may be granted by any other law. At the same time, it can also be held, looking to the second part of this clause of agreement that the parties intended that the benefits under the settlement were to be set off against the similar benefits as granted under any law and the management would be liable to pay only difference between the two benefits.

11. There is no other extraneous evidence to throw light as to whether the intention of the parties was to set off or not to set off the benefits under the settlement against the benefits that may be granted under any law. It is settled law that as `Labour Laws' are enacted for the protection and welfare of the labour therefore where two views are possible, the view favourable to the labour has so be accepted. This view becomes more pertinent in the case of interpretation of document of settlement. The employer who is financially more strong than a workman would have better educated and well-trained employees/advisers to assist him in drafting the document of settlement. The very fact that clause was couched in a language which was self-contradictory would clearly indicate that the employer did not want to put in clear words whether the benefits would be set off against, the benefits that may be granted under any law presumably because the workers were not agreeable to such set off.

12. Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani has relied upon. extensive case-law to show that the benefits granted under the settlement could be considered as benefits granted due to increase in the cost of living and therefore could he set off against increases under subsections (5), (6) and (7) under provision of said section

3. I have already held that this decision would be within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and therefore I need not discuss the case-law cited above by Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani. The only question that requires consideration is as to whether under the relevant clause in the agreement the parties agreed to set off benefits against the benefits that may be granted under any law.

13. I have already pointed that this clause of agreement under heading "Compounding of Benefits" is couched in such contradictory language that both the views are possible. However as the settlement was for the benefit of the workmen and so are the `Labour Laws' the view that would be favourable to the workmen would have to be accepted and the relevant clause of the agreement would have to be interpreted that the parties did agree under this settlement not to set off the benefits under the settlement against the benefits that might be awarded to the workmen under any law during the course of settlement.

14. Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani has further argued that under the two settlements, more benefits have been granted to the workmen than the benefits granted under the various provisions of the Act. It may be pointed out that there is no bar under any law on the employer to grant more benefits or benefits in addition to the benefits provided under any law. The Act only provides the minimum benefits or increases that the employer has compulsorily to award to the workmen but does not limit the maximum benefits. Therefore this argument of Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani also does not have much force.

15. In view of the above discussion I would interpret the relevant clause of agreement to me4n that the parties did agree not to set off the benefits under the agreement against the benefits that may be awarded under any law during the course of above settlement.

16. Reference is answered accordingly. M.Y.H./1784/Lb.S Reference answered accordingly.