Find a Lawyer

Application No. KAR‑597 of 1983, heard on 19th August, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 50‑‑Interpretation of settlement‑‑Settlement clause providing rates of gratuity for "completed service of 15 years or more" but schedule below such clause illustrating up to only 20 years‑‑Contention that gratuity was payable only up to completed service of 20 years‑‑Words "or more", in circumstances, interpreted not to limit period of service to 20 years but it may even be more than 20 years.

Ch. Rasheed Ahmad for Applicant. S. Qamaruddin Hassan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th August, 1985.

This is an application under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to interpret clause (9) of memo. of Memorandum/ Agreement entered into by Glaxo Laboratories (Pak.) Ltd., Karachi and its employees union.

2. Mr. Chaudhry Rasheed Ahmad, Advocate, argued on behalf of the Union while Mr. S. Qamaruddin Hassan, learned counsel has argued on behalf of the Company.

3. This agreement was entered into on 1‑7‑1982 and was in operation upto 30‑6‑1984. While, the present application for interpretation was filed on 30‑10‑1983. By the time this application got interpreted by this Tribunal, there might yet be another settlement between the parties. However, clause (9) of the agreement, in question, reads as under:‑‑

"(9) GRATUITY:

(a) The Company has agreed to enhance the entitlement of the Gratuity from existing 18 days to 20 days per completed year of service for workers who have rendered service to the company for 15 years or more.

(b) It is hereby reiterated that the payment of gratuity from 10th completed years to 14th completed years of service shall continue to be calculated on the following basis.

(c) It is agreed that a period of six months or more will count as full year for the purpose of calculation of Gratuity Payments.

(d) All other terms and conditions of Gratuity shall remain unchanged."

4. The difficulty was that in the words of clause (a) of the agreement, quoted above the years contemplated were 15 years "or more". The difficulty was that the words "or more" in ordinary context would mean 15 years or more upto any number of years. It would not limit to completed years only to 20 years. The arguments of Mr. S. Qamaruddin Hassan, the learned counsel were that because in the following Schedule given below the clause (a) only 20 years are mentioned, hence, the interpretation of the words "15 years or more" would be limited to 15 years upto 20 years. The arguments of Ch. Rasheed Ahmad, the learned counsel were that the Schedule was only illustrative and was not exhaustive. To this, he has referred earlier agreements, namely, agreement ending on 30‑6‑1980 which expressly mentions the completed years of service from 15 to 20 years of completed years of service. The very preamble of the agreements entered into byl the parties indicate that maximum years are mentioned to be 20 years. Only the agreement ending on 30‑6‑1984 mentions completed years 151 years or more. The word "or more" mentioned in number of completed years may be 21, 22 or 23.

5. There is no ambiguity in the words "or more" and it mentions completed years to be more than 20 years. The Schedule given below is only illustrative. Mr. Qamaruddin Hassan's arguments are not sound.. The Management of the Company cannot refuse the calculation on the basis of new clause to limit the service completed years to years 20 in B number. My interpretation is that the word "or more" do not limit the period of service to be 20 years.

M.I.

Orders accordingly

Find a Lawyer Near You

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