JUDGMENT Gulab C. Gupta, C. J.—Respondent No, 2~Union had raised an industrial dispute demanding same pay scale for Surveyors of Chamera Project as is available to the Surveyors in Dhauliganga Project and since the same has been granted by the respondent Labour Court by its award dated 12th August, 1991 (Annexure P-3), the petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the legal validity thereof. 2. There is no dispute that the petitioners are management in relation to Chamera Project and also Dhauliganga Project, Chamera Project situate in Himachal Pradesh, whereas Dhauliganga Project is situated in U. P. The case of the respondent-Union had been that the Surveyors in the pay scale of Rs. 260-430 at Chamera performs the same duties and responsibilities as Surveyors in the pay scale of Rs. 330-560 at Dhauliganga Project in U. P. They, therefore, demanded that they should be granted the pay scale of Rs. 330 560. Since the parties could not come to the settlement, the matter was referred to the respondent-Labour Court for adjudication. The term of reference was as under :— "Whether the Surveyors Grade-III appointed in the year 1984-85 and working in the Chamera Hydroelectric Project Dalhousie Distt. Chamba in the pay scale of Rs 260-350 are entitled to the pay scale of Rs 330-560 at part with the Surveyors in the scale of Rs. 330-560 appointed by the management of Dhauliganga (Uttar Pradesh) of this very organisation. If yes, to what4 relief they are entitled ?" 3. The respondent-Labour Court on consideration of material and evidence adduced by the parties held that there was no difference between the duties and responsibilities of the Surveyors at two places. The learned Labour Court further held that the qualification and the responsibilities of the Surveyors at two places are also same. It, therefore, held that it was a case of rank discrimination, 4. One of the objections of the petitioner-management was that the matter is covered by a subsisting settlement and hence the reference is not maintainable. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the settlement was with relation to rationalisation of designations and not of pay scales. The Labour Court further held that since the respondent-Union was not given due representation in the settlement, it does not bind the same. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the settlement was with relation to rationalisation of designations and not of pay scales. The Labour Court further held that since the respondent-Union was not given due representation in the settlement, it does not bind the same. That is how the impugned award was passed and is subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition. That there is a subsisting settlement, which deals with designation and categorisation of various designations and jobs with the petitioner-management is not in dispute. A perusal of the said settlement would indicate that respondent-Union was not a party to the said settlement It appears that the said Union was summoned to attend the conciliation and attended the same on 2nd and 3rd May, 1986 but eventually refused to sign the settlement. The settlement, however, is a settlement arrived at during conciliation proceedings and would for that reason bind not only those who are parties to the settlement but all those employed at the time of settlement and to be employed in future. (See section 18 (3) of the Act) The conciliation settlement stands on a different footing than a bi-partite settlement between the parties. The conciliation settlement under section 18 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act has the same force as the award passed by a Labour Court. [See Amalgamated Coffee Estates case 1965 JI LLJ 110 (SC)]. No industrial dispute could have been raised and referred to for adjudication as long as it was covered by the subsisting settlement. If respondent No. 2 wanted the dispute covered by the settlement, it should have first terminated the settlement in accordance with law and thereafter taken further steps in the matter Since it is in the ground that the settlement is subsisting, we have no hesitation in holding that the reference was incompetent. 5. Even if it was to be held that the settlement did not bind respondent No. 2 Union, then also, we would reach the conclusion that the award is neither legal nor justified. The wage structure available in the petitioners establishment is as per Annexure P-5, which permitted categorisation of Surveyors, as Surveyors Grade-III, Grade-II and Grade-I. Indeed, it is not only the Surveyors but many other categories, who were so classified, The effect of the settlement is to rationalise the aforesaid classification. The wage structure available in the petitioners establishment is as per Annexure P-5, which permitted categorisation of Surveyors, as Surveyors Grade-III, Grade-II and Grade-I. Indeed, it is not only the Surveyors but many other categories, who were so classified, The effect of the settlement is to rationalise the aforesaid classification. It would, therefore, appear that there is not even one single category of employment in the petitioners establishment, which is not so classified in three grades Indeed, Annexure-III to the settlement, which has reference to Para 9 thereof, would indicate that these three grades are prescribed so as to provide line of promotion within the category. Promotion, as is well established, has now become reasonable expectation of employees and has to be provided, It was,, therefore, obligatory on the part of the respondent Labour Court to consider the matter of classification in the wider context and decide the same on the basis of equity and justice. The effect of the impugned award of the Labour Court is that though all other works and jobs are divided into three grades, Surveyors alone would be divided into two grades. There is nothing special about the Surveyors so as to deserve this out of way categorisation. Apparently, the order of the Labour Court disturbs a well established system of pay scales and line of promotion and that too without any justification whatsoever. Inspite of it, it must be noticed that the reason for the impugned award is that there is no distinction between the work performed by the Surveyors of two categories. It is not possible to accept the aforesaid as a valid reason. Normally a person enters in employment as Surveyor Grade-III and becomes eligible for promotion as Surveyor Grade-II and thereafter to Grade-I. This, by itself, would indicate that the experience is the determining factor in the matter. Role of experience in the service matter cannot be minimised and should have been taken into consideration. The quality of work produced by a beginner and an experienced person cannot be characterised as similar or identical and, therefore, there was no justification for the Labour Court even to hold that the work between the two categories is the same. Role of experience in the service matter cannot be minimised and should have been taken into consideration. The quality of work produced by a beginner and an experienced person cannot be characterised as similar or identical and, therefore, there was no justification for the Labour Court even to hold that the work between the two categories is the same. [See Harbanslal v. State of H. P. 1990 (1) UJ (SC) 13] Indeed, it is the considered view of this Court that though the type of work done by the two Surveyors of two categories may be the same, the quality is bound to be different. The quality cannot be ignored and that too without any reason or justification, as has been done by the respondent-Labour Court. 6. The respondent-Labour Court was obsessed by the fact that some of the Surveyors from Chamera Project had gone to Dhauliganga Project and some from Dhauliganga have been transferred to Chamera This may create some problem but that problem could have been solved without disturbing the rationalised wage structure. Those who come from Chamera to Dhauliganga and are required to work in a higher pay scale could claim the higher pay scale prevalent in that Project. They would not suffer reduction in pay on their subsequent repatriation to Chamera. Similarly, a person coming from Dhauliganga to Chamera can claim to retain his pay scale and make a grievance in case the petitioners-Management causes the reduction therein. Clearly, therefore, the problem anticipated or taken note of by the learned Labour Court was not of such a magnitude so as to disturb the well thought wage structure of the petitioners managements establishment. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no justification for sustaining the impugned award. The same is quashed and set aside and the writ petition is allowed. As a necessary consequence, it must be held that the demand of respondent-Union for higher pay scale for the post of Surveyor Grade-III of Chamera Project is not justified. No costs, Writ petition allowed.