1970 PLP 131 (PLC)

4. The Union made an application under section 35 of the repealed Ordinance before the Industrial Court on 28‑9‑1966, for interpretation of the settlement arrived at between the parties on 21st December 1964. The application remained pending before the Industrial Court, when the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, was repealed on 8th March 1968. The result of the repeal was that the 1970 Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to interpret the settlement Tinder the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), it is only the Tribunal which bas jurisdiction to interpret a settlement arrived at between the parties. The learned Chairman of the Industrial Court made a reference to me, for the transfer of the case to my file, which I accepted.

5. The application came before me on 9th May 19.)

9. On that date the learned Representative for the Union was absent, Mr. Ghulam Hassan Paryani, Advocate, appeared for the Corporation. I interpreted the settlement and held that the word "employee' was wide enough, read with the rules framed by the Corporation, to include an Apprentice as well. I further held that the settlement would extend to all ‑ the workmen, who were in the employment of the Corporation on the date when the settlement was arrived at and also to those who may be subsequently employed by the Corporation.

6. The review is sought on the ground that Mr. Paryani did not have the relevant documents in his possession and that he was not aware of the history of the settlement arrived at between the parties. In particular, emphasis was given to a Supreme Court judgment, which is reported in 1967 P L C 691 in which the same settlement of 21st December 1961, was the subject‑matter of interpretation. Cornelius, C. J. who wrote the judgment of the Court observed as under:‑ "It is important to note that this agreement was expressed to be an amendment of the earlier Office Order of the 5th October 1964. It follows that for a proper construction of this agreement, it should be laid side by side with the said Office Order and construed so that th1e latter order is amended only to the extent indicated in the terms of the agreement."

7. In other words, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the settlement of 21st December 1964, has to be read along with Office Order No. 14, dated 5th October

8. The first question for consideration is as to whether in the circumstances mentioned' in the application, I would be justified to review my order. I have come to the conclusion that lack of proper instruction to the Advocate appearing for the Corporation has resulted in a defective order, which would I amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. The learned Advocate for the Corporation was not aware of the` Supreme Court authority in which the settlement of 21st December 1964, along with Office Order No. 14, dated 5th October 1964 was considered. This authority has great bearing on the interpretation sought for by the Union. I would hold that it is a fit case for review.

9. It is true that the word "employee" includes, as would appear from the Rules framed by the; Corporation, an Apprentice as well. The question, however, is as to whether the settlement of 21st December 1964, read with Office Order No.14, dated 5th October 1964, would apply to an Apprentice as well. In this connection, reference may be made to a certain para. of the settlement of 21st December 1964. Para. 1 (b) of the settlement of 21st December 1964, runs as under:‑ "An increase of Rs. 21.00 would be allowed on the tot.; consolidated pay as on 30th September 1964, if any employee already has had an increase in his pay or more than Rs. 21.( .D as a result of re‑fixation of salary under Office Order No.14 quoted above the increase over and above Rs. 21.00 would not be withdrawn but would be added to the salary as personal

10. The relevant para. of Office Order No. 14, reads asunder:‑ "Subject: Revision of pay scales‑Non‑Officers cadre The question of rationalizing the existing scales of pay, with a view to afford immediate monetary benefit, has been under the consideration of the Management. The matter has now been finalized and the Revised Scales of pay are given in Appendix `A' to this Office Order and will come into force with effect from 1‑10‑1964."

11. My Lord Cornelius, C. J., has enumerated the salient features of the Revised Scales at page 695, of the case already referred to earlier. I would only like to reproduce a few sentences:‑ "In this Order, special emphasis is laid on the provision of immediate monetary benefit.' This expression is used twice, once in the opening passage and again in the third paragraph where provision is also made for fixing salaries of existing employees in the revised scales. Ordinarily, when a revision of pay scales takes place, an employee is brought into the revised scale at a salary as closely proximate to his salary in the existing scale as is possible. Generally, the existing salary is raised to the next higher salary in the pay scales as revised. But this Office Order provided for bringing existing employees on to the new scales, at an appreciably higher figure, namely reached by adding five per cent to the `aggregate of their present basic pay and dearness allowance' . . . and in paragraph 2 of the Order this was made further clear by saying that 'dearness allowance has been merged with the basic pay'."

12. Two things follow from what is reproduced above. In the first place, though Apprentices are also employees of the Corporation, they are not the persons who draw any pay or salary from the Corporation and as such they would not be entitled to the benefit of Office Order No. 14, or that of the settlement dated 21st December 1964. The Apprentices only get an allowance during the period that they are under training. It is only after the period of training that they are entitled to a regular appointment. The settlement and the Office Order was dealing with a special class of employees namely, who were in regular service of the Corporation and not who were under training. In‑ the second placed a perusal, of Office order No. 14, and the settlement would disclose that a given in the initial pay of the "serving staff." The monetary benefit was contemplated to be given to those who were already in the staff of the Corporation when the settlement between the Union and the Corporation took place, read with Office Order No. 25. certain Immediate monetary benefit was to be given in the initial pay of the Saving Staff . The monetary benefit was contemplated to be given to those who were already in the staff of the corporation when the settlement between the Union and the Corporation took place, read with Office Order No. 25.

13. I would hold that on true construction of the settlement of 21st December 1964, read with Office Orders Nos. 14 and 25, these do not apply to Apprentices. It appears from the perusal of these documents that the Union and the Corporation were considering the benefits and the advantages to be given only to the persons who were in the regular employment of the Corporation and not to those who were merely under training. The Apprentices are the persons, who may or may not come to the standard of the Corporation to be eventually taken up on the regular staff. I would also hold that the persons entitled to the advantage and benefit of the settlement and Office Orders Nos. 14 and 25, were the persons, who were on the existing staff' of the Corporation on 1st October 1964. Under the settlement of 21st December 1964, the settlement was to be given effect from 1st October 1964, for a period of two years, The most important settlement was in respect of revision of grades and the increment of Rs. 21.00 which were allowed on the total consolidated pay as on 30th September 1964. The question of giving an increase of Rs. 21.00 or that of 5 % as mentioned in para.3, of Office Order No. 14, to the new entrants did not arise, as they would be starting their career in the revised scales, which were much better than what existed before 1st October 1964.

14. The settlement, as interpreted by me, would be binding on all persons mentioned under section 18 of the Ordinance review my order dated 9th May 1969, as indicated in the foregoing paragraph.