Find a Lawyer

Application No. HYD‑122 of 1977, heard on 14th June 1977.

----S. 50‑‑ettlement‑‑Interpretation of‑Question whether, certain benefits‑agreed in settlement were admissible to apprentices‑Settlement clause not making such benefits applicable to apprentices‑Question whether particular category of employees were apprentices or helpers Such question, held, not within ambit of S. 50‑Such categories of employees, held, could seek remedy separately‑Determination of status of employees‑Cannot be decided in proceedings under S. 50.

M. A. Khan for Applicant.

Ali Amjad for Respondent.

This is an application under section 50 of Industrial Relations Ordinance for the interpretation of Demands Nos. 1, 5 and 9 of the settlement dated 8th January, 1977.

2. The Demand No. 1 reads as under :---

Revision of Grades and Increments

(a) The Mill Management keeping in view the long service of its worker has agreed to rationalise/revise the existing grades of pay in the Mill and Nukerji Farm as per Annexure "A". In view of general rite in prices, the mill Management further agreed to escalate the salaries/wages of all workers in the employment of the Mill and Nukerjr Farm as on 1st January, 1977 in the revised scales as under;

(i) Workers having service of less than one year ...NIL

(ii) Workers having service between one to three years . ... ... One increment

(iii) Workers having service over three years .. Two increments

(b) The parties agree that F.F. Special Increment allowed under the earlier settlement dated 15‑3‑75 stands withdrawn. In lieu of this allowance, the Management has agreed' to give additional pay which will be merged in the existing wages on 1‑1‑1977 of workers as under

(a) Skilled and other workers in the old pay Rs.,5 p. m.

scales from 8 to 10 (Revised pay‑sere 5)

(b) Semi‑skilled and other workers in the ay scales from

11 to 12 (Revised pay‑scales from 6 to 8) Rs. 20 p. m.

(c) Unskilled workers in the pay scales from 13 to 15

(Revised pay‑scale 9) Rs. 25 p. m.

The parties further agree that after the merger of the above additional pay, the increments as per sub‑para.

(a) will be given according to the revised scale of pay.

It was urged on behalf of the Management that the aforesaid demand was implemented. Mr. Ali. Amjad, the learned counsel for the workers opposed the contention on the ground that the increase in the wages as contemplated by the demand was confined to the employees of G' group only. I am unable to accept this contention for the simple reason that there is nothing in the settlement that it is confined to the employees of G' group and is not applicable to all the employees. There is no dispute that the settlement as I have interpreted has been fully implemented and workers of all the categories have been given the benefit allowed by the settlement.

3. It was, however, urged on behalf of the Management that the apprentices were not entitled to the benefits of the settlement pertaining to the aforesaid demand. Mr. Ali Amjad, although, conceded that the apprentices were not entitled but he proceeded to contend that the persons who were said to be or shown as apprentices were, in fact, helpers and, therefore, workers and not apprentices in the sense in which‑it was understood. So it is plain enough that the dispute is not with regard to the interpretation of the settlement but with regard to the status of that category of employees who were said to be apprentices. Consequently, those categories of employees may seek their remedy in accordance with law and the question of their status cannot be decided in these proceedings.

4. Taking up demand No. 5, it reads as under:‑

House Rent

(a) The Mill Management agreed to pay Accommodation Allowance at the rate of 10 % of basic pays subject to a minimum of Rs. 50, per month, to married workers residing with their families in Tando Mohd. Khan City and who are not provided with Mill accommodation. All these workers will be required to produce out living certificate duly attested by competent authorities acceptable to Management and through proper channel. However as and when accommodation is available in the Mill Colony, the employee will be offered the said accommodation, and if he refuses to move therein then he will cease to receive the above Accommodation Allowance.

(b) The Union after mutual agreement has withdrawn this demand."

It was urged on behalf of the Management that the seasonal workers were not entitled to rent or the benefit of accommodation. On the other hand, it was urged on behalf of the workers that there was nothing in the settlement that the benefit was confined to permanent workers. On consideration of the settlement as it reads, I am of the view that there is nothing to support the stand taken by the Management. The benefit is not confined to permanent workers but the seasonal workers are equally entitled to the benefit. In this I am supported by the perusal of the settlement which shows that wherever the benefit is to be confined to permanent workers, it was specifically mentioned. But in settlement No. 5 no such distinction was drawn.

5. The last demand is No. 9 which reads as under:

Increment to Seasonals

The Mill Management agreed to grant increments to the seasonal workers as under----

Seasonal workers having service of less than one season will not be entitled to any increment."

To appreciate the contention raised before me reference has to be made to the previous settlement dated 14th February, 1976, wherein certain workers named therein were allowed Rs. 15 p. m. as an incentive on account of having put in more than 8 years service. Now returning to Demand No. 9 it was alleged on behalf of the Management that the workers were not entitled to the benefit allowed under the previous settlement, but they could only be given the benefit allowed under the new settlement in accordance with demand No. 9. I have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties and I am of the view that the workers named in the previous settlement are entitled to the benefit allowed under the previous settlement as well as under the new settlement that is to say, that they are entitled to Rs. 30 per month, whereas other workers are entitled to only Rs. 15 p. m. in accordance with settlement No. 9 and they are not entitled to the benefit of the previous settlement.

6. In result the reference stands disposed of in terms of what has been stated.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.