1988 PLP 928 (PLC)

No. 1. 250-5-280/6-340-7-375 2. 260-6-302/7-365 1. 260-6-302/7-365 3. 270-7-326/8-390 2. 270-7-326/8-390 4. 280-8-352/9-415 3. 280-8-352/9-415 5. 290-10-350/12-470 i 4. 290-10-350/12/470 6. 315-12-390/14/525 5. 31.5-12-399/14-525 7. 335-14-447/16-575 6. 335-14-447/16-575 8. 370-16-514/18-640 7. 370-16-514/18-660 9. 390-20-590/22-700 8. 390-20-590/22-700 10. 410-22-520/24/760 9. 410-22-520/24-760 11. 430-24-550/28-830-30-980 12. 460-28-600/30-900 10. 410-28-600/30-900. 13. 490-30-790/32-950-35-1125 14. 520-30-730/35-1010 11. 520-30-730/35-1010. 15. 550-35-900/40-1100 12. 550-35-900/40-110- 13. 600-40-1000/ 50- 1300-60-1600 It can be seen that National Pay Scales upto No. 15, except Nos. 1,11 and 13, were adopted by the K.P.T. as their pay scales Nos. 1 to

12. The K.P.T.'s pay scale No. 13 is not to be found in the National Pay Scales but had been mutually agreed toy. This pattern of adaptation of National Pay Scales persevered thereafter as can he seen in the pay scales in the K.P.T. as revised with effect from 1-5-1977, 1-7-198 1 and 1-4-1984. When the present subsisting settlement was signed on 4-9-1986 the decision of the Government in the light of recommendations of the Pry Committee had not yet been taken. But since a decision was anticipated, it had been agreed by the parties on demand No. 1(b) that the Pay structure would he reviewed after the Government made an announcement on the recommendation of the Pay Committee. The Government announcement came on 1-7-1987. But the Pay structure in the K.P.T. was not reviewed by the Management in view the Finance Division O.M., dated 21-7-1987 wherein it had been conveyed the new Basic Pay Scales would not be applicable to those employees Of organisations including Public Sector Corporations who are governed by the I.R.O. and/or whose financial terms of service are settled through collection bargaining. On receipt of demand from the C.BA. a clarification was subsequently sought by the Management, inter alia, on the following point:-- "BB- K.P.T have also informed the C.BA that under their current biennial agreement, which is valid till 30th March, 1988, no increase can be paid to K.P.T. Employees if the Government announces an increase for its employees, and that they could raise the above matter as a new demand in their next charter of demands during April, 1988 for negotiations, and that a mid-term demand for increased salaries would be unfair labour practice, and was not justifiable under their current agreement or according to the Ministry of Finance O.M., dated 21-7-1987". The clarification received from the Government was-- " It is confirmed that the K.P.T. being an Autonomous Body like other Autonomous Organisations, the orders issued in Finance Division's O.M. No. F.1 /15/1mp.II/87, dated 21-7-1987 are equally applicable to the K.P.T. The position as indicated by the K.P.T. in para BB of the telex referred to above, is also confirmed" By review, the C.B.A. claims that in the light of the past practice, the newly prescribed Basic Pay Scales 2 to 10, 12, 14 and 15 have to be adopted as K.P.T. Scales No. 1 to

12. K.P.T's Pay Scale No. 13 has already, admittedly by mutual agreement, been changed from 1025-75-2225 to 1300-100-2800. This claim was opposed by the Management who submitted that "to review" did not mean "to introduce" or "to adopt" the Government Scales; that what was agreed to be reviewed in the settlement was "the pay structure" and not the "existing pay structure", and that-the omission of the word "existing" was deliberate and as such "the pay structure" would not mean "the existing pay structure". On this premise it was urged that what was meant by the term "review" was only to consider and examine the newly introduced Government scales and not necessarily to introduce or adopt them. Such introduction or adoption was also, according to the Management, not intended by the Government itself as is clear from their O.M., dated 21-7-1987 and the clarification received on 21-10-1987. Review according to Black's Law - Dictionary means "To re-examine I judicially. A reconsideration; second view or examination; revision; consideration, for purposes of correction It also means, as per the same source, "to make corrections and make improvements". Review is a comprehensive term and when the agreement directs a review, then a review has to take place. The review has to be meaningful and in keeping with the intentions of the parties. Their intention can be gathered from the past settlements on the subject. The agreement can not be permitted to be reduced to redundancy by refusal of one of the parties to act. The K.P.T's plea of no action is, therefore, not justified. In view of the past practice persisting for a sufficiently long period, we are satisfied that what was meant by review was to incorporate the new Government Basic Pay Scales 2 to 10, 12, 14 and 15 as K.P.T's Scales 1 to

12. In regard to the claim of the workers to an increase commensurate with review of the pay structure, we must say that in their statement in justification of their claim they had not spelt out what they actually meant by such claim. All they had stated was: "(d) and in doing so (review of pay structure) no increase other than increase envisaged in re-structuring the pay will be allowed". However, during the hearing, it was clarified that while the workers did not demand any increase in the rates of the allowances or of the fringe benefits, they considered themselves entitled under the settlement to quantitative increased, proportionate to the review of the pay structure, the rates of the allowances and of the benefits remaining the same. In this regard, they particularly sought analogy from the treatment given to the Port Qasim Authority Workers to whom the benefit of the new Government scales had been given. The Management on the other hand interpreted the expression to totally deny any increase or any benefit whatsoever on account of the review, during the period of the subsisting settlement. Their case was that by the settlement of 4-9-1986 the workers had been given financial benefits involving recurring annual increase of Rs.45 million and as the settlement was a package deal, the workers had agreed to forego any further benefits even if the pay structure were reviewed to the light of the Government announcement, if any, during the period of the settlement. The general principle of interpretation of a written document is to discover the intention of the parties from the words used in the document. It' the words be express and clear effect must be given to them. According to l1alsbury "Where the intention of the parties has been reduced to writing it is, in general, not permissible to adduce extrinsic evidence, either to show such intention, or to contradict, vary, or add to the terms of the document. Consequently the construction cannot be controlled by previous negotiations; and when a written agreement is carried into effect by conveyance the conveyance becomes the final evidence of the intention of the parties, and >;s not liable to be varied' by reference to the agreement; nor is the construction of a written instrument varied by the subsequent declaration or conduct of the parties. The instrument is to the construed as at the time of its execution:" (Laws of England, Vol. X, pp. 265-266) and again-- "The object of interpretation of a written document is to discover the intention of the author, the written declaration of whose mind the document is always considered to be Consequently, the construction must be as near to the minds and apparent intention of the parties :is possible, as the law will permit. The function of the Court is to ascertain what the parties meant by the words which they have used; to declare the meaning of what is written in the instrument, and not of what was intended to have been written; to give effect to the intention expressed, the expressed meaning being, for the purpose of interpretation, equivalent to the intention. It is not permissible to guess at the intention of the parties and substitute the presumed for i17; expressed intention". (Law of England, Vo1.I1, p. 381). According to Maxwell-- "If there is one rule of construction for Statutes and other documents, it is that you must not imply anything in them which is inconsistent with the words expressed used". (Interpretation of Statutes, 10th Edn., p. 2) The same above principles have been expounded and adopted by Courts in Pakistan. It had been held in P L D 1957 S C 219 that: "One general rule that emerges, and ' it is an ancient rule, from discussions on the subject is that in the interpretation of written instruments, whether they are constitutional charters or ordinary statutes or other documents, the first object of the Court is to discover the intention of the author and that such intention is to be gathered from the words used in the statute or document". The Management also drew attention to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnaphully Papers Mills Ltd. 1961 P L C 991 and of National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. 1961 P L C 1013 that a Tribunal is not entitled to give bounty out of goodness of heart or to be guided mainly by sympathetic speculation with practically no evidence in the matter of granting benefit to the workers. In the light of the above principles, we may examine if the relevant words in the settlement or the intention of the parties gathered in the light of such words meant the grant of any increase following from a review of the pay structure during the settlement period. The words are " but in doing so (i.e. reviewing pay structure) no increase will be paid to the K.P.T. employees". The words are amply clear in their meaning that the intention was not to permit any increase in consequence of the review of the pay structure upon announcement of decision of the Federal Government on the recommendations of the Pay Committee. The words "no increase" are used without any qualification. A distinction is not possible in favour of increase in quantum as distinguished from increase in rates. It is, therefore, difficult to agree that the expression "no increase" bars only an increase in the rate of the allowances but not in the quantum of the benefits worked out on the basis of the same rates, but in the light of the reviewed pay structure. The past practice also shows that the Government scales did not automatically become applicable to the K.P.T. employees. They were adopted either through a settlement or an Award. By the Award on 27-9-1970, as already referred to, only comparable pay scales of the Government were adopted. In the settlement, dated 10-5-1979 it had been agreed against demand No. 1(viii) that if during the period of the settlement the Government granted any increase in pay or allowances or applied the same to the employees of the Autonomous/Semi- Autonomous Bodies, that increase would also be paid to the K P.T. employees. However, no question of an increase arose because no increase was announced by the Government during the period of that agreement. Against a similar demand bearing No. 2(viii) it had been agreed before the Chairman of the Commission vide order, dated 31-3-1983 in Reference case No. 9(3)/82 "that depending on the terminology of the Government's Notification granting future benefits, the employees to whom I.R.O. 1969 applies, the same- shall be extended to the K.P.T. employees, subject to the conditions mentioned in the future Notifications, if any". Similarly O.M. issued by the Government on 18-8-1983, relating to pay scales and fringe benefits for the Civil Servants did not automatically apply to the K.P.T., but was subsequently made applicable by settlement, dated 26-8-1984 and with effect from 1-4-1984, although the said O.M. dated 18-8-1983 had taken effect for Civil Servants from 1-7-1983. It is thus clear that the Government announcement dated 1-7-1987 would not extend, on its own force, to the K.P.T. workers unless either the Government announcement or the settlement so directed. The Government announcement, dated 1-7-1987 read with O.M., dated 21-7-1987 made it clear that the revisal basic pay scales would not be applicable to the employees of the Public Sector Corporations who were covered by the I.R.O. and/or whose financial terms of service are settled through collective bargaining. The same view had been reiterated by the Government in their clarification made on 1-10-1787 whereby the view taken by the Management marked `BB' in their Telex, dated 21-10-1987 was confirmed by the Government The Workers' case also is not that the Government announcement would apply on its own force, but they urged that applicability was implied in the agreement on clause 1(b). No such implication, in our view, can be read in the face of clear language of the agreement which bars increase without exception in consequence of review of pay structure. As regards analogy of Port Qasim Authority, it must be noted that the workers in that Authority are a separate entity and are governed by settlements reached between them and that Authority. In their settlement executed on 10-3-1987, the following had been agreed against demand No. (?): "So far as the question of increase in pay and allowances announced by the Federal Government for the employees of the Autonomous t1odies is concerned, it is agreed to allow the same based on terminology of such letter." It is in the light of the above agreement that the Port Qasim Authority Workers are stated to have been given the benefits of the Government -announcement. The agreement reached as above, between the workers and the "Workers of Port Qasim is obviously different in language and distinct in content from Clause 1(b) of the agreement between the Workers and the Management of K.P.T. No claim, therefore, based on analogy is tenable. There is also no force in the analogy sought from the treatment given to Grade 16 and above employee for the obvious reason that those employees were not governed by the I.R.O. or dependent upon a settlement and as such could be given the benefit of the Government announcement. DECISION In terms of the settlement dated 4-9-1986 in respect of clause 1(b) the pay structure in the .K.P.T. shall be reviewed in the light of Government's announcement on 1-7-1987 of revised basic pay scales of Civil cmployees of the Federal Government so as to incorporate the revised basic pay scales 2 to 10, 12, 14 and 15 as K.P.T.'s Scales 1 to 12, but no increase will be paid to the K.P.T. employees in consequence of such review during the period of the scuLIl1ent. S.O./126/N.I.R.C. Order accordingly.