CYANAMID (PAK.) LTD,KARACHI Versus CYANAMID (PAK.) EMPLOYEES' UNION

DECISION

This is an application under section 50, I.R.O., 1969, filed by the applicants establishment seeking an interpretation of the provisions of the Memorandum of settlement, dated 29‑5‑1984, with regard to `set‑off' of the increase in wages of 13.5% payable under the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) (Amendment) Act, 1985, effective 1‑7‑1985 against the amount allowed to all the employees concerned of the applicants management by way of a relief due to rise in the cost of living under the relevant clauses of the said settlement. It is also claimed by the applicants establishment that as per charter of demands, dated 2‑1‑1984 raised by the respondent‑Union, some demands which were directly related to a rise in the cost of living, had also been settled under the above‑referred settlement. As per clause 17 of the settlement, executed and signed between the parties on 29‑5‑1984, became effective with effect from 1‑1‑1984 within the meaning of the proviso to section 3(6) of the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973, as amended upto date. The applicants management's further case is that vide paras. 4 and 5 of the `Short Recital of the case', the said settlement, dated 29‑5‑1984 had been reached between the parties as a result of mutual negotiations and collective bargaining in full and final settlement of all the demands, raised by the C.B.A. Union and by virtue of it, the amount and percentage of increase given to the workman under different heads were far exceeded than in increase of 13.5% as admissible under the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) (Amendment) Act, 1985, thus, the same is liable to be set‑off under the provision (a) to section 3(6) of the said Act. It is also claimed by the applicants management that as the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) (Amendment) Act, 1985, does not contemplate payment of "cost of living allowance" but, "an increase in wages" to the extent of 23.5% which was liable to be set‑off under the proviso (a) to section 3(6) of the said Act, therefore, the C.BA. Union was duly apprised of the correct position, vide letter, dated 10-8‑1985, but, the said union had shown disagreement and was not prepared to accept this legal proposition of law. In view of these facts, the applicants management had submitted present application for interpretation of the said settlement, dated 29‑5‑1984.

2. The respondent‑Union had submitted a counter‑affidavit of Muhammad Umer Khan, General Secretary of the C.B.A. Union and had resisted the present interpretation application of the management mainly on the ground that the stand taken by the applicants establishment actually amounted to a reduction in the benefits given under the settlement referred to and it was not bona fide, therefore, no "set‑off' of the benefits of the settlement against increase in wages payable under the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) (Amendment) Act, 1985 was called for.

3. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate for the applicants establishment and Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent‑Union and have also carefully perused the entire documents brought on record of this Tribunal as well as the written arguments submitted by both the parties. It is an admitted position that the demands raised by the C.B.A. Union clearly indicated that the same were directly related to rise in the cost of living. So, the C.BA. Union could not take double benefit although the increase of 13.5% was liable to be 'set‑off' n terms of proviso (a) to section 3(6) of the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973 (Amended up to date). It is also an admitted position that the applicants management had already allowed much more increase to the workers under a Collective Bargaining Settlement, dated 29‑5‑1984. It is convincingly argued by Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate for the applicants management that the applicants establishment is not liable to pay the increase of 13.5% effective from 1‑7‑1985 under the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973, as amended by the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) (Amendment) Act, 1985 and as such the said increase is liable to be "set‑off' under the clear proviso (a) to section 3(6) of the Act. In support of his arguments, Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate for the applicants management has very rightly placed his reliance on a case reported in PLD 1983 SC 15 at page 18, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:‑‑

"In other words the intention underlying the provisions of the proviso was that in case any financial benefit was granted to the workers by virtue of, inter alia, a settlement, which was intended to provide relief due to a rise in the cost of living, then, such financial benefit will be adjustable as against the additional cost of living allowance granted by the Amending Act."

In view of this factual and legal position, I would hold that the contentions of Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, have much force, therefore, they must be prevailed. As regards the contentions of Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate for the respondent‑Union, I see no force in any of them and further I am of the view that the respondent‑Union is miserably unable to rebut this legal aspect of the case. The authority relied upon by Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate for the respondent‑Union is not relevant and applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present application, particularly in view of the authority of the Supreme Court, as has been relied upon by the applicants management.

4. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would hold that the applicants establishment are not liable to pay the increase of 13.5% effective from 1‑7‑1985 and as such it is to be "set‑off" under the proviso (a) to section 3(6) of the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) (Amendment) Act, 1985. The present application for interpretation under section 50, I.R.O., 1969, is accordingly allowed.

A.E./1236/Lb.S ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Orders accordingly.