1989 PLP 927 (PLC)

AJMAL MIAN, C.J.,‑‑This petition is directed against the order dated 28‑4‑1952, passed by respondent 2, i.e. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, upon petitioner's application under section 50 of the I.R.O., for interpretation of the Settlement dated 26‑4‑1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Settlement) entered into between the petitioner and respondent 1, the then Union, for the period commencing farm 1‑4‑1981 to 31‑3‑1983. The point in issue before respondent 2 was, whether the petitioner was entitled to adjust the amount of increase in wages under the Settlement while computing cost of Living Allowance tinder subsection (5) of section 3 of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973, respondent 2 has held that the have increase in wares was normal annual increase in wages and, therefore, was not liable to be adjusted. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order, has filed the present petition.

2. In support of the above petition, Mr. Ali Amjad, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that in presence of an express clause in the Settlement to the effect that the above increase during the Settlement period would be considered as an increase on account of rise m the cost of thing, the learned respondent 2 could not have arrived at the above conclusion. On the other hand, Mr. M. Shafiq Qureshi, learned counsel for respondent 1, has submitted that there is a finding of fact recorded by respondent 2 that the above increase was normal increase on account of annual increment. He has further submitted that for un‑skilled workers, the increase was only Rs. l3 per month, whereas, in respect of skilled and semi skilled workers, the increase in wages was to the extent of Rs.18.20 per month which could not have been an increase on account of rise in cost of living.

3. In furtherance of his above submission, Mr. Ali Amjad, learned counsel for the petitioner, has referred to the following clause in the Settlement: He has further submitted that under proviso to subsection (5) of section 3 of the Act, the petitioner was entitled to set off against the amount payable as a relief due to rise in cost of living under the settlement reached or an award given under the I.R.O., which had been announced and became effective on or after 1st January, 1981. He has further submitted that adjustment is permissible against the payment of any amount.

4. In the case of Supreme Court, namely, R.B. Industries Limited v. Employees' Welfare Union reported in P L D 1983 SC 15, the Honourable Supreme Court has clearly laid down that in order to decide the question whether any increase in wages is liable to be adjusted, the entire material placed before the competent forum is to be considered. In the instant case, respondent 2, on the basis of the material produced before it has concluded that the increase in wages under the Settlement was normal increase on account of annual increment. It is true that under the above quoted clause, it was provided that the increase it wages under the Settlement would be treated its a part of the increase allowed by the Government in basic wages. In our view the above clause scans to be deeming clause which indicates that factually the increase was on account of normal increase in wages on account of annual increment. The amount of increase is also not even inter se between un‑skilled on the one hand and skilled and semi‑skilled on the other hand, which facts also negates the contention of the petitioner that it was on account of increase in the cost of living allowance. In any event, there are two interpretations possible to the above clause and one which favours the workmen is to he preferred over the one which favours the employer as we are called upon to interpret beneficial enactment enacted for the benefit of the labour class. The view taken by the learned respondent 2 cannot be said to he perverse or against any princilr1e of law and, therefore, does not call for interference in this case to exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction. The petition is therefore, dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. M.Z.S./R.8C/K ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.