GLAXO LABORATORIES (PAKISTAN) LIMITED EMPLOYEES' UNION, KARACHI Versus GLAXO LABORATORIES (PAKISTAN) LIMITED, KARACHI

DECISION

1. As late as 1985 the applicants had filed an application before this Tribunal under section 50 of the IRO for the interpretation of the clauses 1 to 6 of the Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between them and the respondents. The bone of contention between the parties was as to whether the increases announced vide Gazette Notification, dated July 27, 1985 were to be paid in addition to the increases given in the settelment, dated the 15th of October, 1984.

2. The concluding paragraph of the recital reads as under:

2. "And whereas the parties held several meetings which were extended by mutual consent from time to time as a result of bilateral negotiations and collective bar 4 ping on the said Charter of Demands the Union and the Company have reached the following agreement taking into consideration the ~ e in the cost of living and all the demands and claims of the Union contained in the said Charter of Demands or brought for negotiations and discussions in the course of collective bargaining of the said Charter of Demands."

3. The first clause pertained to t1 increase in basic salaries wages. It was in the following words:

3. "It is agreed that the basic Salaries drawn by all the permanent workers as at 1st July, 1984 shall be raised by Rs. 50.00 (Rupees Fifty only) per month at a flat rate.'

4. House Rent was in Clause II 4nq in the following words:

5. "It is agreed that House Rent Allowance of all permanent workers will be increased to (sic) from 78% of the basic salary subject to minimum of R.7. 145 per month to 36% (Thirty six per cent. only) of the basic salary subject to a minimum of Rs.190 (Rupees One Hundred Ninety only) per month."

6. The third was in regard to the Conveyance Allowance, the fourth clause pertained to the Medical facilities, the Vth was Miscellaneous Allowance and the Vth out of a host of clauses pertained to Leave Fare Assistance.

4. Mr. Shahbaz Munir, the Personnel Manager in his affidavit has given a Chart, the same reads as under:

7. Basic

8. 674

9. 50

10. 724

11. COLA Compensation

12. 189

13. 19

14. 4

15. 212

16. House Rent

17. 207

18. 58

19. 265

20. Comes to

21. 14.90%.

22. Conveyance 168

23. 128

24. 40

25. 168

26. Medical

27. 145

28. 40

29. 185

30. Leave Fare

31. 21

32. 39

33. 60

34. Bonus 257

35. 342

36. 26

37. 368

38. 1725

39. 257

40. 1982

41. 14.90%

42. It shows that by‑virtue of this settlement the increases came to Rs. 257.

5. Mr. Ali Amjad learned counsel for the applicants contended that the increase in the basic wages and facilities only to the permanent workers was pointer to the fact that the increases were not to alleviate the abject conditions of the workers but presumably because of the improved paying capacity of the company relatable to comparable industries. No construction has at all been placed or attempted, in support of the two suggestions.

6. It is to be seen that in the case of R.B. Industries v. Employees' Union PLD 1383 SC 1S where there was not even a faint mention that the increase of Rs.55 per month in the wages was meant to meet the rising cost of living, was found to be abnormal, and the increase of 13.5 was found liable to adjustment. There is no indication in the said case that there was any increase in the allowances also.

7. I have (therefore, got no hesitation in holding that the increase announced by the Government was to be adjusted in the increase as given by the respondents in the settlement referred to earlier. I answer accordingly.

43. H.B.T./2214/Lb.S Order accordingly.