1989 PLP 929 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 21st November, 1988. JUDGEMENT AJMAL MIAN, C.J.‑‑This petition is directed against the order dated 4‑2‑1982, passed by learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, upon respondent No. 2's application, under section 50 of the I.R.O., for interpretation of the settlement dated 19‑4‑1981, w.e.f. 1‑1‑1981, for a period of two years. It may be observed that the above impugned order in fact had disposed of four applications under section 50 of the 1.R.0., fled by four different companies. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are (hat the petitioner and respondent 2 entered into the above settlement dated 19‑4‑1981 (hereinafter referred to as the settlement), ‑whereby, workmen were given certain benefit including increase in wages. Upon enactment of subsection (5) of section 3 of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the respondent 2 filed the aforesaid application for interpretation. The learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, by the impugned order in relation to the petitioner has held that the payment made under the settlement on account of increase in the wages is liable to be adjusted under above subsection (5) of section 3 of the Act. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present petition. In support of the above petition, Mr. Chaudhary Rashid Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently urged that the addition of explanation to clause (b) of subsection (5) of section 3 of the Act has changed the legal position obtaining prior to incorporation of the above explanation, which was not present when subsection (4) of above section 3 was added in 1980. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to claim adjustment of any increase in the wages, it is incumbent that the term relating to the increase in the wages in the settlement should clearly provide that the increase in the wages is on account of Cost of Living Allowance and in the absence of any such provision the adjustment cannot be claimed. In furtherance of his above submission, he has referred to above subsection (5) of section 3 with the above explanation. It may he advantageous to reproduce the above subsection (5) of section 3 which reads as follows:‑‑ 3(5) In addition to the Cost of Living Allowance admissible under subsections (1), (2) and (3) or, as the case may be, subsection (4), if any, every employee whose wages do not exceed Rs.1,500 shall, in respect of his employment on or after the first day of July, 1981, whether on time work or piece work basis, he paid by his employer a Cost of Living Allowance equal to Rs.40 per month. Provided that the said cost of Living Allowance shall be set off: (a) against the amount payable as a relief due to rise in the cost of living under an agreement or settlement reached, or an award given under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969), which has been announced and became effective on or after the first day of January, 1981, or which is announced and. becomes effective within a period of one year of the commencement of the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981; and (b) against the amount payable under an agreement or settlement reached and in force on the first day of July, 1981, under which employees get increases at regular intervals on the basis of a rise in the cost of living. Explanation, for the purposes of this subsection, subsection (6) and subsection (7) any increase in wages accruing by virtue of the usual increment or promotion to a higher grade, or an allowance not specifically given to provide relief due to a rise in the cost of living, shall not be deemed to bean increase intended to provide relief due to arise in the cost of living". A plain reading of the above subsection (5) of section 3 indicates that it provided relief to the extent of Rs.40 per month to the workmen whose wages did not exceed Rs.1,500 p.m. and who were in employment on or after first day of July, 1981. However, the proviso of the above subsection inter alia provides that the above cost of Living Allowance shall be set off against the amount payable as a relief due to rise in the cost of living under an agreement or settlement reached or an award given under the I.R.O., which has been announced and became effective on or after the first day of January, 1981. It may also be noticed that the explanation to the above proviso provides that for the purposes of the above subsection (5) any increase m wages accruing by virtue of the usual increment or promotion to a higher grade, or an allowance not specifically given to provide relief due to a rise in the cost of living, shall not be deemed to be an increase intended to provide relief due to a rise in the cost of living. Chaudhary Rashid Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, in furtherance of his above submission has referred to the paragraph 1 of the settlement, which provides the increase of the basic wages w.e.f. 1st January, 1981 and it has been contended by him that since the above clause does not make any reference to the increase in the wages on account of cost of living allowances by virtue of above explanation to the above proviso to subsection (5) of section 3 of the Act, no set off can be claimed by respondent

2. It is true that in the above clause, there is no reference to the increase in the wages on account of increase in the cost of living allowance, but it is also a well‑settled principle of interpretation of documents that a document is to be read as a whole and one portion of the document cannot be isolated from the other portion thereof. If we keep in view the above basic principle of interpretation of documents and if we refer to the other provisions of the settlement, namely, clauses (11) and (13) of the settlement, it becomes evident that the increase in the wages was on account of increase in the cost of living. It may be observed that clause (a) of paragraph 11 of the settlement expressly provides that the above financial benefits have been agreed by the Co. in consideration of the rise in the cost of living and the Union's understanding o cooperation in implementing the measures for improving the labour productivity. Whereas, clause (c) of paragraph 13 of the settlement provides that the cost of living allowance of Rs.40 per month paid in accordance with the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980, would not be set off against the above increases. The above two provisions make it clear that the Cost of Living Allowance payable under subsection (4) of section 3 of the Act under the Amendment Ordinance, 1980 was not to be adjusted but there was no exclusion to the set off under subsection (5) of section 3 of the Act. On the other hand, subclause (a) of para. 11 of the settlement expressly provides that the increase in the wages is on account of inter alia increase in the cost of living. In our view the. explanation to the proviso of subsection (5) of section 3 of the Act has been substantially complied with by expressly providing in the above subclause (a) by referred to the rise in the cost of living. The impugned order of the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal seems to be in consonance with the above legal position and also in accord with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Industries Ltd. v. Employees' Welfare Union and another reported in P L D 1983 S C

15. The above petition has no merits and it is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs. M.Z.S./S‑364/K Appeal dismissed