Sanat Kumar Mukhopadhyay v. Union of India — 1984 DIGILAW 349 (CAL)

JUDGMENT Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. 1. The 8 writ petitioners are employed at the Calcutta Branch Office of the State Trading Corporation of India Limited. The petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were appointed as Stenographers in March, 1980, the petitioner Nos. 3, 6 and 7 were appointed as Junior Assistants in February and April and petitioner No.5 was appointed as Office Manager (Accounts) in March, 1980. All the appointments were made after 1.11.1979. At the time when the petitioners were appointed in their respective posts negotiations were going on between the respondents and the Federation of the State Trading of India Employees Union representing the employees working. under the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. regarding the fixation of scales of pay of different categories of employees including the categories in which the petitioners were employed under the provisions of Section 18(1) and Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter) referred to as the said Act) and ultimately a settlement was recorded and signed on 19.4.1980. The said settlement inter alia, provides that pay of existing employees in position as on 1.11.1979 would be fixed in revised scales as shown in annexure mentioned in the said settlement. In case of any difference in implementation or interpretation of any of the provisions of the said settlement between the management and the Federation, the same would be discussed in the Joint Consultative Committee. 2. It is alleged that the employees who were in office and in position on 1.11.1979 were placed in the revised scales, though the actual settlement was arrived at on 19.4.1980 and consequently the scales of pay of the petitioners who were actually in office and/or position before 19.4.1980 were completely ignored. Under the laid settlement the scale of pray of the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4 had been revised at Rs. 430/- to Rs. 950/- the scale of pay of the petitioner Nos. 3, 6 and 7 had been revised at Rs. 385/- to Rs. 581/- and the scale of pay of the petitioner No.5 had been revised at Rs. 675/- to Rs. 1,205/-. The result of the said settlement was that the petitioners who were drawing Rs. 355/- per month as basic pay on their date of appointment along with other Stenographers appointed on or before 1.11.1979, the revised basic scale per month was fixed at Rs. 675/- to Rs. 1,205/-. The result of the said settlement was that the petitioners who were drawing Rs. 355/- per month as basic pay on their date of appointment along with other Stenographers appointed on or before 1.11.1979, the revised basic scale per month was fixed at Rs. 430/- whereas the Stenographers belonging to the same category who were appointed on 1.11.1979 or prior to that would be getting Rs. 520/- per month on the same scale of pay. Similar anomalous position resulted in the fixation of pay in respect of other petitioners. Having come to know about the said anomalous position in the fixation of their basic pay under the revised scale, the petitioners made a representation on 28.8.1980 to the authorities concerned through the Secretary of the State Trading Corporation of India Limited (Calcutta Region) Employees' Union. Similar representation were made on 6.6.1980, 19.12.1980 and 5.2.1982. Since no reply came from the State Branch of the Employees, Union, the petitioners on 1.3.1982 made a representation to the Secretary General of the Federation of State Trading Corporation Employees' Union at New Delhi. Thereafter several representations were made by and on behalf of the petitioners through the Employees' Union, both at Calcutta and also at Delhi and ultimately by a Circular dated 24.4.1982, the Secretary of the State Branch informed the petitioners that at the All India Conference of the Federation to be held on and from 28.4.1982, the anomalies in respect of fixation of basic pay of the employees like the petitioners would be taken up for discussion. On 24.6.1982, the representatives of Federation of State Trading Corporation of India Employees' Union met the Executive Director (Personal) and discussed the anomalies that cropped up as a result of the settlement dated 19.4.1980 and as a result of the discussions, it was decided to set up a Joint Committee consisting of two representatives of the State Trading Corporation of India and two representatives of the employees of the State Trading Corporation and the said Committee was set up by office order dated 22.7.1982 of the Group Executive (Personnel) of the State Trading Corporation of India Limited. 3. The Committee known as Pay Anomalies Committee met several times and ultimately submitted an unanimous report to the authorities of the State Trading Corporation of India Limited. 3. The Committee known as Pay Anomalies Committee met several times and ultimately submitted an unanimous report to the authorities of the State Trading Corporation of India Limited. In the said report, the Committee accepted the existence of anomalies in respect of pay scale inter alia, of the petitioners and inter alia, recommended as follows:- "The pay anomaly in this category of cases has arisen because of the fact that the revised scales came into effect w.e.f. 1.11.1979 and since the above category of employees were not in position in the Corporation as on 1.11.1979, they have not been given the benefits of revised fitment tables. The arguments in respect of those employees are that these persons were appointed in the old scales and appointment orders issued to them did not make a mention of their automatically being placed in the new scales without giving them any option. All the provisions of the agreement are applicable to them for a period of 4 years w.e.f. 1.11.1979 to 31.10.1983 as in the case of other employees. Para 1, 2 of the agreement also lays down that provisions of the settlement shall be applicable to all workman of the Corporation and also to other employees upto and including office managers and office manager (accounts) and equivalent. It is observed by the Committee that the difference has cropped up due to non-application of fitment table with reference to the basic pay in the old scale in respect of the persons who joined between 1.11.1979 to 19.4.1980. In their case only the minimum pay of the new scales in the respective cadre was given. It is the opinion of the Committee that loss on account of application of new scales may be compensated." 4. Ultimately the report of the Pay Anomalies Committee was placed at the meetings of the Executive Committee held on 6/7/8.9.1983. The relevant extract of the decision of the Executive Committee is as follows:- "Item 20 Issues raised by Federation of STC Employees' Unions Pay Anomalies:- 1. An agreement was entered into with the Federation of STC Employees' Unions on 19.4.1980, effective from 1.11.1979 covering the period upto 31.10.1983. 2........................... 3........................... 3.1......................... 3.2......................... 3.3. Fitment benefit to 35 employees who joined between 1.11.1979 and 19.4.1980. 4........................... The recommendation to grant fitment benefit to the employees who joined on or after 1.11.1979 was rejected." 5. An agreement was entered into with the Federation of STC Employees' Unions on 19.4.1980, effective from 1.11.1979 covering the period upto 31.10.1983. 2........................... 3........................... 3.1......................... 3.2......................... 3.3. Fitment benefit to 35 employees who joined between 1.11.1979 and 19.4.1980. 4........................... The recommendation to grant fitment benefit to the employees who joined on or after 1.11.1979 was rejected." 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the basic pay scale of the petitioners has been fixed in a arbitrary manner and the fixation of different basic pay for the employees belonging to the same category is arbitrary and has resulted in deprivation of property so far as the petitioners are concerned. It is contended that neither the terms of employment nor the settlement dated 19.4.1980 makes any provision for fixation of different basic pay in respect of employees belonging to same category. In other words, the real grievance of the petitioners is that they are placed in the same category with those who are getting higher fixation in respect of basic pay and there is no basis for making a separate classification amongst the same set of employees. This classification amounts to unreasonable discrimination and the order fixing different basic pay as complained of ought to be set aside. 6. Two affidavits-in-opposition have been filed on behalf of the respondents. 7. In their first affidavit, the respondents have taken only the jurisdictional points and contended that the application is not maintainable, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioners being members of the Federation of the State Trading Corporation of India Employees Union are bound by the provisions of the statement arrived at between the said Federation of Unions and the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. under sections 18 and 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Such settlement is binding on the parties unless terminated under section 19(2) of the said Act. No provision of such a settlement can be carried so long as the settlement remains operative and the petitioners having not gone through the procedure of the relevant Act are precluded from raising such questions in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is also contended that all disputes or grievances, if any, not having been settled the petitioner should have approached the conciliation machinery of the appropriate Government for settlement of such disputes or grievances. It is also contended that all disputes or grievances, if any, not having been settled the petitioner should have approached the conciliation machinery of the appropriate Government for settlement of such disputes or grievances. The petitioners having been appointed after 1.11.1979 and before 19.4.1980 when the settlement was arrived at between the State Trading Corporation and the Federation of Unions representing the employees, the classification of the petitioners have been knowingly agreed to, by the representatives of the Federation of the Unions, until and unless the said settlement is terminated and a new settlement is arrived at between the Federation of Unions and the State Trading Corporation, there, is no provision for invalidating the said classification of the settlement. The anomalies complained of cannot be settled without application of the provisions and the procedures of the said Act. 8. Thereafter when the matter appeared before Basak, J. on 27.6.1984, the respondents were directed to file affidavit-in-opposition within three weeks from that date. The respondents filed such affidavit-in-opposition only on 17.9.1984 when the matter was fixed for hearing before me. 9. In the second affidavit-in-opposition also the respondent haves taken the same jurisdictional point and repeated the same allegations. It has been contended that the Pay Anomalies Committee had no power or authority to give any direction or make any recommendation which was binding on the STC and STC was not bound to accept any recommendation of the said Committee. The pay of the petitioners and the other employees of the STC was fixed, it is alleged, strictly in accordance with the settlement dated 19.4.1980. The fixation of pay has been done as a result of the said agreement between STC and its workmen. 10. Two affidavits-in-reply have been filed by the petitioners denying the allegations and disputing the submissions made in the said affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents. 11. Mr. Biswanath Bajpayee, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the provisions of section 18 and section 2(p) of the said Act have no application on the facts and in the circumstances of this case. It is contended that the agreement in question was entered into between the Federation of the State Trading Corporation of India Employees' Union and the State Trading Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as STC) on 19.4.1980 but implementation of the agreement was from 1.11.1979. It is contended that the agreement in question was entered into between the Federation of the State Trading Corporation of India Employees' Union and the State Trading Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as STC) on 19.4.1980 but implementation of the agreement was from 1.11.1979. The petitioners were admittedly appointed under the STC after 1.11.1979 and before 19.4.1980. It has to be decided whether the employees appointed after 1.11.1979 and upto 19.4.1980 are also covered by the said agreement. It is also contended that since the said settlement would be binding on the parties for 4 years i.e. upto 31.10.1983, the benefits granted by the said agreement shall also be made available to all employees of the STC whether they were appointed before or after 1.11.1979. The Pay Anomalies Committee admitted the existence of anomalies and appropriate recommendation was made by the said Committee. The petitioners are not assailing the settlement. They are only asking that the anomalies in implementing the Agreement shall be removed. The technical objection in a Court of equity should not be allowed to stand if the Court is satisfied that the anomalies lead to discrimination. Mr. Bajpayee has also drawn my attention to the order passed in another Central Government undertaking namely the Mineral and Metals Trading Corporation which was originally a part of STC. It appears from the said order that the Mineral and Metals Trading Corporation extended the benefits of its agreement entered on 8.7.1980 but effective from 1.11.1979 to the employees appointed between 1.11.1979 and 8.7.1980. All the employees were given the benefits of the agreement who were in position on 8.7.1980 that is to say the date of signing of the agreement. It is also contended that the STC itself on an earlier occasion, namely, in its settlement arrived on 23.11.1976 effective from 2.11.1975, agreed to extend the benefits of such settlement to the employees appointed between 2.11.1975 and 23.11.1976. 12. Mr. Arijit Chowdhury, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this application in view of the provisions of sections 18 and 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. His further contention is that the petitioners have been fitted into the new scales of pay in accordance with clauses 6 and 6.1 of the settlement dated 19.4.1980. His further contention is that the petitioners have been fitted into the new scales of pay in accordance with clauses 6 and 6.1 of the settlement dated 19.4.1980. As the settlement is the result of mutual accord, any action giving effect to its terms is not unilateral and cannot be described as arbitrary or unreasonable. The fitting of the petitioners, although referred to the Anomalies Committee cannot be described as an anomaly. An anomaly, in this context, is an irregularity which was not intended by the parties, e.g. where a workman gets less on the new scale than on the old scale or where juniors are given greater benefit than seniors as a result of the implementation of the settlement. Here, it was specifically intended and expressly agreed by the parties to the settlement that the petitioners should not get the benefits of fitment. The petitioners' dispute was referred to the Anomalies Committee merely because it was raised on the settlement and the Anomalies Committee was considering genuine anomalies which might arise out of the implementation of the settlement. It is further contended by Mr. Chowdhury that in any event, by referring the matter to the Anomalies Committee, the STC made no representation that the recommendations of the Committee would be binding on STC. It has not been disputed that the said Committee has no power or authority to give any direction or making any recommendation which would be binding on STC and STC is not bound to accept such recommendation. STC is, therefore, not estopped from rejecting any recommendation of the said Committee. It is further contended that action of STC in rejecting the recommendation of the Anomalies Committee is also not unreasonable or unjust. Clause 6.1 of the Settlement dated 19.4.1980 is quite reasonable. The Settlement is given retrospective effect from 1.11.1979. Therefore, in implementing the settlement, the position must be viewed as on 1.11.1979. On that date none of the petitioners was in service and therefore there can be no question of granting them any fitment benefit on transfer from the old scale to the new scale of wages as they were not in enjoyment of the old scale or any scale of wages. On that date none of the petitioners was in service and therefore there can be no question of granting them any fitment benefit on transfer from the old scale to the new scale of wages as they were not in enjoyment of the old scale or any scale of wages. Thus the distinction made between those in service on 1.11.1979 and those who joined thereafter is quite reasonable, and the fact that a man in service on 30.10.1979 will get fitment benefits whereas one who joined on 2.11.1979 will not, is explained. Also, a settlement is the result of negotiations and give und take by both sides and it may be that the workmen have conceded some points to gain others. Just because some concessions are made is no ground for upsetting the settlement in the absence of any allegation of undue influence or fraud. In this connection Mr. Chowdhury has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Herbertsons Ltd. vs. Workmen of Herbertsons Ltd. & other, AIR 1977 SC 322 . Mr. Chowdhury has drawn my attention to the following observations of the Supreme Court made at page 328:- "It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad. Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other advantages gained the Court will be slow to hold a settlement as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be accepted or rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it as a whole as unfair or unjust." Mr. Chowdhury has further submitted that the argument that there is discrimination between one who joined on 30.10.1979 and one who joined on 2.11.1979 is also not correct because in any wage settlement there must be a cut off date. Thus, assuming that the settlement dated 19.4.1980 was to have prospective effect, persona who were in service on 19.4.1980 would get the benefit of fitment and those who joined a day or two thereafter would not. If this was not so, no one would join at the beginning of the scale. It is his further contention that the petitioners are in effect seeking to vary a settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. If this was not so, no one would join at the beginning of the scale. It is his further contention that the petitioners are in effect seeking to vary a settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Apart from the fact that no Court will vary a contract duly entered into between the parties, the writ court will not interfere with any concluded contract even if there has been a breach of contract. Mr. Chowdhury has also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mulchhinder Singh and other vs. Hardayal Singh Prar and other, reported in AIR 1976 SC 2216 and also a decision of this Court in the case of Gurudas Chatterjee vs. State Bank of India, 87 CWN 117. Mr. Chowdhury has also submitted that even though there, is no breach of contract in this case, if the principles laid down in the above decision will apply even greater force to a settlement in terms of section 2(p) read with section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The primary object of .that is the settlement of industrial disputed and one of the most important modes of achieving such object is by mutual agreement. For that reason, industrial settlements are given great sanctity and a settlement reached as a result of collective bargaining is not set aside at the instance of a few persons. Were it otherwise industrial peace achieved by settlement would be easily broken and the whole purpose of the Industrial Disputes Act frustrated. He has also contended that the petitioners have not established any illegal right to ask for a writ of mandamus. In any event, this application is liable to be dismissed as STC, the employer of the petitioners and the only necessary party has not been made a respondent in the application. 13. I have considered the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were employed after 1.11.1979 and before 19.4.1980. The settlement was signed on 19.4.1980. By that time, the petitioners were employed and they were drawing the same scale of pay with other employees of the same category who were in office on 1.11.1979. All employees including the petitioners are intended to be governed by the provisions of the said settlement. The settlement was signed on 19.4.1980. By that time, the petitioners were employed and they were drawing the same scale of pay with other employees of the same category who were in office on 1.11.1979. All employees including the petitioners are intended to be governed by the provisions of the said settlement. There is no provision in the settlement for fixation of different basic pay in the same scale in respect of the employees of the same category. If the respondents proceed on the footing that only those who were in position on 1.4.1979 should get the benefit of revision or fitment of pay scale, in that event the salary of the petitioners could not have been revised at all. It is no doubt true that the settlement is the result of mutual accord. The petitioners have been fitted in to the new scales of pay in accordance with the settlement. The Pay Anomalies Committee in their report have observed that the difference in pay has cropped up due to non-application of fitment table in respect of the persons who joined between 1.11.1979 and 19.4.1980. In their case only the minimum pay of the new scales was given. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Chowdhury that it was specifically intended and expressly agreed by the parties to the settlement that the petitioners should not get the benefits of fitment. Since the settlement was signed on 19.4.1980, all the staff who were there on 19.4.1980 should be governed by the said agreement, otherwise there would be anomaly as emphasized by the said Committee. The anomaly resulted in discrimination amongst employees belonging to the same category. The Pay Anomalies Committee realized that injustice was being caused inter alia to the petitioners and they recommended that the loss on account of application of new scale should be compensated. Mr. Chowdhury's contention is that fitting in of the petitioners, although referred to the Anomalies Committee cannot be described as anomaly in as such as anomaly, in this context, is an irregularity which was not intended by the parties. I am unable to accept this contention of Mr. Chowdhury. If the settlement is to govern all those who were employed after 1.11.1979 and before 19.4.1980, in that event it would be unreasonable to suggest that the benefit of the settlement would not be given to them. I am unable to accept this contention of Mr. Chowdhury. If the settlement is to govern all those who were employed after 1.11.1979 and before 19.4.1980, in that event it would be unreasonable to suggest that the benefit of the settlement would not be given to them. It has not been disputed that there has been a difference in pay scale resulting in loss of pay of the petitioners. As a matter of fact, the anomalies arose in the course of implementation of the settlement in cases of those persons who were employed after 1.11.1979 and at the date of signing of the settlement on 19.4.1980. 14. The other contenti0n of Mr. Chowdhury that the petitioners are in effect seeking to vary a settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has no substance. It is not a case of varying the contract entered by and between the parties. It is neither a case of amendment of the settlement nor a variation of the agreement. The petitioners are claiming under the settlement itself. The petitioners have not assailed the agreement but they have protested against the inequality and injury resulted from the implementation of the settlement in the case of the petitioners. The petitioners have asked for the same benefit as are extended to other employees of the same category under the settlement. Even assuming it is a case of variation of the agreement such variation is not prohibited under the industrial Disputes Act. If a settlement is made by mutual accord it can also be varied by consent of the parties. The Pay Anomalies Committee was constituted with the representatives of the workmen and the management. If a settlement is made by mutual accord it can also be varied by consent of the parties. The Pay Anomalies Committee was constituted with the representatives of the workmen and the management and the said Anomalies Committee resolved that the anomalies which cropped up should be rectified. Such resolution should be treated as a part of the memorandum of settlement arrived on 19.4.1980. I am also unable to accept the contention of Mr. Chowdhury that the State Trading Corporation is not bound to accept any recommendation of the said Committee and the action of the STC in rejecting the recommendation of the Anomalies Committee is also not unreasonable or unjust. I am also unable to accept the contention of Mr. Chowdhury that the State Trading Corporation is not bound to accept any recommendation of the said Committee and the action of the STC in rejecting the recommendation of the Anomalies Committee is also not unreasonable or unjust. The Anomalies Committee was constituted by mutual accord to find out the anomalies in the pay scale of the employees belonging to the same category and to remove such anomalies. If the intention was that the recommendation of the Anomalies Committee would not be given effect to, in that event there was no point in constituting such a committee. As a matter of fact, it was found on earlier occasion that such anomalies might arise in implementing the settlement which is made effective retrospectively. The settlement cannot ignore the cases of the persons who were in employment of STC on the date of signing of the agreement although the settlement might have been given retrospective effect. Because the settlement has been given retrospective effect, the cases of those persons who were in employment on the date of signing of the agreement but not on the date when the settlement cannot into operation have to be considered. As a matter of fact STC in an earlier occasion so also the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation which was originally a part of STC experienced difficulties in implementing the settlements which did not purport to cover the cases of the employees who were in the employment on the date of signing of the retrospective settlement but were not in employment on the date when the settlements came into force retrospectively. State Trading Corporation and Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation extended the benefits of the said settlements to the employees who were in employment on the date of signing of the agreement. It is not known why there should be a departure from the established practice in this particular case in respect of only 35 employees who joined between 1.11.1979 and 19.4.1980. I am, therefore, unable to accept the argument that because the settlement has been given retrospective effect from 1.11.1979 in implementing the settlement, the position must be viewed as on 1.11.1979 and as none of the petitioners was in service on that date they cannot get any benefit of fitment. I am, therefore, unable to accept the argument that because the settlement has been given retrospective effect from 1.11.1979 in implementing the settlement, the position must be viewed as on 1.11.1979 and as none of the petitioners was in service on that date they cannot get any benefit of fitment. The distinction made between those in service and those Joined thereafter would have been quite reasonable, had the settlement was not given effect retrospectively. One cannot ignore those employees who are in employment on the date of signing of the agreement when such agreement purports to bind all the employees who are in employment on the date of signing of the agreement during the period such agreement would remain in force. 15. The Executive Committee of the STC in rejecting the recommendation of the Anomalies Committee did not give any reasons. They ought to have considered the case of the petitioners in proper perspective and taken a decision fairly and reasonably. If the settlement has been given retrospective effect from 1.11.1979 then it cannot govern those who were employed after 1.11.1979. But the settlement covers not only the employees who were employed on 1.11.1979 but also the employees who are appointed thereafter. The settlement would be operative for 4 years. The respondents cannot therefore deny the benefit of same scale to the same category of the staff who are appointed after 1.11.1979 but before the date of signing of the agreement. The contention of Mr. Chowdhury that the petitioners have not established their legal right cannot also be accepted. The petitioners have a legal right to demand the same scale of pay along with others or fitment benefit who were in the same category. There cannot be two different scales of pay for the employees who are working in the same post. It has not been disputed that there is a difference in pay scale nor has it been contended that the demands of the petitioners are unreasonable. It cannot be disputed that State Trading Corporation is a State or other authority; within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and they cannot make any arbitrary and discriminatory treatment to the staff similarly placed. It cannot be disputed that State Trading Corporation is a State or other authority; within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and they cannot make any arbitrary and discriminatory treatment to the staff similarly placed. It is not in dispute that in the case of State Trading Corporation, under an earlier memorandum of settlement the benefits were extended not only to those who were in position as on that date of signing of the agreement but also others who were appointed after the date of signing of the agreement during a particular period of time (31st May, 1977). In the case of the Mineral & Metal Trading Corporation of India Limited the same problem arose and this was resolved by giving the aggrieved persons a notional fixation of pay. 16. In my judgment, the contentions raised by Mr. Chowdhury have no substance. This is a clear case of arbitrary exercise of power. There has been complete non-application of mind. The authorities have not considered the precedents nor they have considered the case of the employees of the Mineral & Metal Trading Corporation. Whenever an agreement is arrived at by an Employees' Union purporting to represent all the employees of an organization with the management then the crucial date should be the date when the agreement is signed. There is always a time lag between the date of negotiation and date of signing of the agreement and during that period those would be employed would be deprived of the benefit of refixation or revision of pay and allowances. I do not find any reason why the petitioners would be deprived of the benefits of the settlement. In any event, the settlement in question is no longer in operation and then fore without assailing the agreement the petitioners can assail the discrimination made against them in so far as the pay scale is concerned. It will be inequitable and unjust if benefit of fitment is not extended to the employees who joined between 1.11.1979 and 19.4.1980. There must be equal pay for equal work and those who are similarly placed must get the similar benefits. There is no reason to deprive only 35 employees of the benefits which they deserve. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, this application succeeds. There must be equal pay for equal work and those who are similarly placed must get the similar benefits. There is no reason to deprive only 35 employees of the benefits which they deserve. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, this application succeeds. The respondents and the State Trading Corporation of India Limited are directed to revise the pay of the petitioners who joined between 1.11.1979 and 19.4.1980 and who were not given the pay revision. Their pay shall be fixed in terms of the fitment formula as contained in the Agreement dated 19.4.1980. Their revised pay in the pay scale would be effective from the respective date of their joining. The respondents and the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. are directed to fix the pay scale of the petitioners in terms of the order within 4 weeks from the date of communication and shall pay all benefits on the basis of such fixation within 4 weeks thereafter. Let a plain copy of this judgment be handed over to the learned advocates appearing for the parties, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court).