This is an application under Rule 34 of the Rules of Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 18.10.89 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (J), Dimapur passed in Civil Misc Case No.107 of 1989. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners, 100 in number, who are all employees of different nationalised and scheduled banks (respondent Nos.4 to 9) filed Civil Suit No.73 of 1989 in the Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (J), Dimapur District, Kohima in Nagaland. In the said suit, the case of the petitioners is that a Special Area Allowance of 25 % of the basis pay was being given to them by the nationalised banks to meet the high costs of living and other difficulties in the remote areas in which they were posted and had become part of their service condition, but the said rate of Special Area Allowance was sought to be reduced from 25% to 12% in the 5th Bipartite Settlement made by the Indian Bank Association. National Conferation of Bank Employees and the All India Bank Employees Association (respondents 1, 2 and 3 respectively). In the suit, the petitioners have prayed that the clauses of the 5th Bipartite Settlement reducing a substantial part their emoluments in Nagaland be declared as illegal, null and void, inoperative and unenforceable in law on various grounds. Along with the suit, the petitioners also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the CPC for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from giving effect to the Special Area Allowances as contained in the 5th Bipartite Settlement dated 23.4.89 and 10.4.89 and pending disposal of the application for temporary injunction for a interim injunction, which was registered as Civil Misc. Case No.107 of 1989. By order dated 15.5.89 the Additional Deputy Commissioner issued show-cause notice to the defendants to show cause as to why the injunction should not be granted in favour of the petitioners and further directed that in the mean time status quo be maintained as on 15.5.89 in respect of rate of Special Area Allowances till the hearing of the application for injunction. 3. 3. After receiving notice, the respondents appeared before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (J), Dimapur and filed their show cause stating therein inter alia that while it is true that the 5th Bipartite Settlement reduced the rate of Special Area Allowance to 12% of the basic pay, such reduction in the rate of Special Area Allowance has not at all affected the clerical and subordinate staff who are getting higher emoluments as a result of the 5th Bipartite Settlement. It was further stated in the said show cause that as many as 3 lakh employees in the clerical and subordinate category of staff of 54 banks were covered by the 5th Bipartite Settlement. The 54 banks including respondent Nos.4 to 9 were members of the respondent No.1 Association. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were All India Unions representing the clerical and subordinate staff of all the 54 banks. There were negotiations between the defendant No. 1 Association representing all the 54 banks and the defendant Nos.2 and 3 Unions representing the clerical and subordinate staff working in the 54 banks on charters of demand for revision of 5 basic pay and other emoluments of clerical and subordinate staff of the banks which culminated in the 5th Bipartite Settlement. Special* Area Allowance is only one integral part of the said 5th Bipartite Settlement which as a whole was beneficial to the employees and the Special Area Allowance cannot be challenged in isolation by the petitioners. The respondents also contended that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to modify or alter any provision of the settlement arrived under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that the 5th Bipartite Settlement can not be challenged in the civil Court. 4. By order dated 18.10.89, the Additional Deputy Commissioner held that the petitioners had not made out any ground for grant of temporary injunction and vacated the order of staus quo dated 15.5.89 passed by him earlier. It is this order dated 18.10.89 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (J), Dimapur which is under challenge in this revision. The findings of the Additional Deputy Commissioner on the basis of which he vacated the order of status quo are quoted herein below : "Perused the records/petitions and also heard both the counsel. It is ascertained that the petitioner does not make out any ground for grant of temporary injunction. The findings of the Additional Deputy Commissioner on the basis of which he vacated the order of status quo are quoted herein below : "Perused the records/petitions and also heard both the counsel. It is ascertained that the petitioner does not make out any ground for grant of temporary injunction. That the civil Court has no jurisdiction to modify or alter any provisions of 5th Bipartite Agreement which was arrived at under the Industrial Disputes Act. As a result of the 5th Bipartite Settlement the clerical and subordinate staff of the Banks which include the plaintiff too are getting higher benefits in all respects. When a recognised union negotiate with an employer the worker's as individuals do not come into picture. It is not necessary that each individual worker should know the implication of the settlement since a recognised union which is expected to protect the legitimate interest of the labour, enters into a Settlement in the best interest of the labour. In this case, the subject matter is money in the form of rate of Special Area Allowance. Therefore, the question of plaintiffs suffer irreparable injury does not apprehend. In view of the above findings, in my opinion it is a fit case to vacate interim order dated 15.5.89. Accordingly, the status quo order dated 15.5.89 passed by this Court is hereby vacated. This disposes of Civil Misc. Case No. 107 of 1989." When the civil revision was moved on 3.11.89, this Court issued a Rule and in the interim stayed the impugned order dated 18.10.89 passed by the learned" Additional Deputy Commissioner (J), Dimapur subject to the condition that the petitioners would give an undertaking that in the event the matter is decided against them they would refund the excess amount drawn or the excess amount would be deducted from their terminal benefits, Thereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time to enable the parties to negotiate a settlement out of Court, but not such settlement was possible and the revision was finally heard on 17.8.94, 18.8.94 and 28.2.95. 6. At the hearing of the civil revision, Mr. 6. At the hearing of the civil revision, Mr. DK Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in the impugned order dated 18.10.89, the Additional Deputy Commissioner wrongly assumed that the petitioner was seeking to modify the terms of the 5th Bipartite Settlement and held that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to modify the terms of the 5th Bipartite Settlement. He failed to appreciate that the petitioner's case in the suit was that Special Area Allowance had been conferred on the petitioners by executive decisions of the respondent Nos.4 to 10 and had become part of the service condition of the petitioners which could be enforced as a right under the general law of the country by way of a suit. In support of this submission, Mr. Mishra relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Premier Automobiles Ltd. AIR 1975 SC 2248 and the judgment dated 30.11.89 of this Court in Civil Revision No.10 (H) of 19$7. Mr. Mishra further submitted that it would further appear from the impugned order dated 18.10.89 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner that he refused to grant injunction on the .ground that the subject matter of the suit is money in the form of rate of Special Area Allowance and the petitioners would not suffer irreparable injury if temporary injunction was not granted but it had been held in the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Revision No.10 (H) of 1987 that non-granting of Special Area Allowance to the people in the fixed income group may cause such lose which may not be repaired in terms of money by paying the same after a decade or so. Hence the findings of the Additional Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order dated 18.10.89 on the question of maintainability of the suit and irreparable injury were contrary to the said judgment dated 30.11.1988 in Civil Revision No.10 (H) of 1987 by which an injunction granted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (J), Dimapur a restraining the State Bank of India from giving effect to circular No.24 of 1984 reducing the Special Area Allowance of the bank employees from 331/3% to 10% of the basic pay as a consequence of the 4th B ipartite Settlement was upheld. He also pointed out that by the said judgment dated 30.11.88 of this Court the balance of convenience of the parties was evenly weighed and the Bank's interest was also protected by directing that an undertaking shall be taken from the petitioners that if they were to lose in the suit the excess amount paid to them shall be realised form their terminal benefits. Mr. Mishra further submitted that the said judgment dated 30.11.88 in Civil Revision No.10 (H) of 1987 was challenged before the Supreme Court by a Special Leave Petition, but the said Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 31.7.89. Mr. Mishra vehemently contended that since the instant case was directly covered by the said judgment the present civil revision should be disposed of accordingly with an injunction restraining the respondents form giving effect to the reduced rate of Special Area Allowance in the 5th Bipartite Settlement. 7. Mr. BK Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that a reading of paragraph 9 of the plaint before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (J), Dimapur would show that the petitioners case was that the Special Area Allowance @ 25% at Nagaland was being given to the petitioners pursuant to the bipartite settlements. Thus in the suit the petitioners were seeking enforcement of their right to Special Area Allowance at the rate of 25% under bipartite settlements and it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case Premier Automobiles Ltd., AIR 1975 SC 2248, that such settlements or collective agreements between the Union and the Managements are recognised and created under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and not under the general law of contract and a suit to enforce such a right created and recognized under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was barred and not maintainable. He further contended that since bipartite settlements on the basis of which the right to Special Area Allowance at the rate of 25% of the basic pay is claimed are contracts which are determinable in nature, no perpetual injunction can be granted to prevent breach of obligations arising one of such determinable contracts as per the provisions in sections 30 (2) and 14 (1) (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and it has been held by the Apex Court in AIR 1983 SC 1272 that where no perpetual injunction can be granted by way of final relief, temporary injunction cannot be granted as an interim relief. Mr. Goswami further submitted that as a result of the 5th Bipartite Settlement, the petitioners were drawing basic pay which was much more than the pay they were drawing prior to the 5th Bipartite Settlement and hence the reduction of the Special Area Allowance from 25% to 12% of the basic pay has not brought about any reduction in the actual quantum of Special Area Allowance which ranged between Rs.100 to Rs.300 both prior to and after the 5th Bipartite Settlement. Mr. Goswami also submitted that at any rate the 5th Bipartite Settlement was a result of negotiation between the respondent No.1 representing the banks, on the one hand; and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 representing the majority of the employees, on the other hand, and such a settlement granting a large number of benefits to the employees of which the Special Area Allowance was only one cannot be challenged before the Tribunal or Courts except on malafides, but in the present case no malafide has been pleaded by the petitioners in the plaint. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Herbertsons Ltd. vs. The workmen, AIR 1977 SC 322 ; M/s Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. vs. Their workmen, AIR 1981 SC 2163 in which the Supreme Court held that such settlements made by the majority union are presumed to be fair and just and should not be lightly ' interfered with by the Court or the Tribunal. Hence, on facts as well as in law, the petitioners did not have a strong prime facie case in the suit. Hence, on facts as well as in law, the petitioners did not have a strong prime facie case in the suit. He cited the judgment of the Apex Court inShiv Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1993) 3 SCC 161 wherein the Apex Court has observed that unless a strong prima facie case was made out by the plaintiff no temporary injunction can be granted. He also cited the judgment in Wander Ltd. & another vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 wherein the Supreme Court reiterated the proposition that the appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of the discretion of the Court of first instance in refusing interlocutory injunction except when the Court of first instance has ignored the settled principles of law regulating the grant of refusal of interlocutory injunction. 8. In view of the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties the question that has to be first decided by this Court in this civil revision is whether the suit filed by the petitioners before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (J), Dimapur, was prima facie maintainable. The case of the petitioners in the suit was that they have been enjoying Special Area Allowance at the higher rates of the basic pay for a long time and such Special Area Allowance had become an inseparable part of the'service conditions of the petitioners. While narrating the facts in the plaint, however, the petitioners have stated in paragraph 9 of the plaint that from time to time there have been bipartite settlements and in pursuance of such settlements the bank employees were provided with Special Area Allowance at the rate of 25% in Nagaland. But from this statement in paragraph 9 of the plaint this Court come to the conclusion that the right of the petitioners to the Special Area Allowance at higher rates were derived from bipartite settlements. The Court will have to examine the materials filed before the trial Court as well as this Court to find out as to whether the right to Special Area Allowance at higher rates was actually based on the biparatite settlement or some decision of the management of the respondent Nos.4 to 10 banks particularly when it has been urged by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the aforesaid paragraph 9 of the plaint was inadvertantly drafted and was now sought to be amended by an application for amendment filed by the petitioners before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (J), Dimapur on 7.11.89. Mr. Mishra has produced before this Court a book published by Bank Employees Publication containing the First, Second and Third Biparatite Settlements between the Indian Banks Association and All India Bank Employees Association and on a persual of the same I do not find any provision in die said three Bipartite Settlements fixing any specific rates of Special Area Allowance and all that is mentioned in the Third Biparatite Settlement dated 31.8.79 is that parties agree to discuss and a settle the question of payment of Special Area Allowance. On the other hand, copies of the letters of different banks filed alongwith the civil revision as Annexure A and B would show that the managements of the respondent Nos.4 to 10 banks have fixed the Special Area Allowance for their employees in the State of Nagaland at the following rates : Allahabad Bank 33½% of the basic pay with effect from 11.11.69 Indian Bank 25% of the basic pay United Bank of India 25% of the basic pay Punjab & Sind Bank 20% of the basic pay Bank of Boroda 331/3% of the basic pay upto September, 1983 and 20% from September, 1983 Bijaya Bank 20% of the basic pay as per HO circular 43/87 dated 3.3.87. The aforesaid chart would show that different rates of Special Area Allowance were being given with effect from different dates to the employees of the respective banks in the terms of decisions taken by their respective managements and it is difficult to hold that the petitioners were being given higher rates of Special Area Allowance in Nagaland pursuant to bipartite settlements at the uniform rate of 25%. The right of the petitioners to specific rates of Special Area Allowance is thus not based on any birpartite settlement or collective agreement recognised and enforced by section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly the right that is sought to be enforced in the suit before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Dimapur, does not flow out of the e Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly the right that is sought to be enforced in the suit before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Dimapur, does not flow out of the e Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Rather, a reading of the plaint as a whole would show that the petitioners case in the suit was that the 5th Bipartite Settlement in so far as it reduced the rate of Special Area Allowance to 12% was highly discriminatory and wholly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and is vitiated by malafide. The suit of the petitioners, therefore, was based on the rights of the petitioners under the Constitutional law or the general law and according to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Premier Automobiles Limited (supra), the suit was not barred. On the materials placed before this Court, therefore, I am of the prima facie opinion that the suit filed by the petitioners before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Dimapur was maintainable. 9. But for obtaining a temporary injunction, the petitioners have not merely to show that the suit filed by them was maintainable but also that they have a strong prima facie case in the suit, as has been held by the Apex Court in Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1993) 3 SCC 161 . In other words, the petitioners must satisfy the Court that the 5th Bipartite Settlement in so far as it reduced the Special Area Allowance for employees of the banks in the State of Nagaland to 12% of the basic pay was prima facie discriminatory and arbitrary and violative of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India or was vitiated by malafide and was illegal. On a close reading of the 5th Bipartite Settlement contained in settlements dated 23.2.89 and 10.4.89 as circulated by the Indian Bank and filed before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Dimapur, I find that the pay of the subordinate staff and clearing staff have been substantially increased by the 5th Bipartite Settlement. On a close reading of the 5th Bipartite Settlement contained in settlements dated 23.2.89 and 10.4.89 as circulated by the Indian Bank and filed before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Dimapur, I find that the pay of the subordinate staff and clearing staff have been substantially increased by the 5th Bipartite Settlement. Their pay as was existing prior to the 5th Bipartite Settlement and as revised, by the said settlement have been detailed in Annexures I and II to the said settlement and are extracted herein below : Sub Staff Basic Pay Clerk Basic Pay Existing Revised Existing Revised 430 815 520 900 440 835 550 950 450 860 580 1000 464 890 615 1075 478 920 650 1150 492 950. 685 1225 503 980 730 1300 524 1015 775 1400 540 1050 820 1500 560 1080 875 1600 580 1120 930 1700 600 1160 990 1810 620 1200 1055 1920 640 1240 1125 2030 660 1280 1195 2140 680 1320 1280 2260 705 1360 1375 2380 730 1410 1470 2500 760 1460 1565 2715 790 1510 1660 2935 820 1560 1755 2955 850 1610 1850 3075 1660 3195 Considering the fact that the received pay as per the 5th Bipartite Settlement is almost twice the basic pay as existing prior to the said settlement, 12% of the revised basic pay would not be very much lower than 25% of the basic pay as it existed prior to 5th Bipartite Settlement in terms of actual quantum of money. That apart, on a reading of Annexure V to the 5th Bipartite Settlement which specify the rates of Special Area Allowance for different areas. I find that only two rates of Special Area Allowance have been specified : 6% and 12% of the basic pay and while for the neighbouring States of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Manipur, the rate of 6% has been fixed, for the States of Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, the rate of 12% has been fixed as Special Area Allowance. Thus the highest rate of Special Area Allowance has been fixed for the petitioners working under different Banks in the State of Nagaland. Further on a perusal of the said Annexure-V to the 5th Bipartite Settlement, I find that the minimum and maximum quantum of Special Area Allowance fixed for the State of Nagaland are Rs. Thus the highest rate of Special Area Allowance has been fixed for the petitioners working under different Banks in the State of Nagaland. Further on a perusal of the said Annexure-V to the 5th Bipartite Settlement, I find that the minimum and maximum quantum of Special Area Allowance fixed for the State of Nagaland are Rs. 100.00 and Rs.300.00 respectively which are not substantially different a from the minimum and maximum of Rs. 150.00 and Rs.400.00 fixed in the letter dated 27.9.78 of the AQN (PI), Indian Bank annexed to the civil revision as Annexure B. On the materials, therefore, it is difficult to hold that monetarily the petitioners would suffer on account of reduction of the rate of Special Area Allowance as a result of the 5th Bipartite Settlement. 10. Moreover, it appears that the 5th Bipartite Settlement was finalised by a process of collective bargaining between the parties and it was in the nature of a package consisting of revised pay, DA and different allowances including the Special Area Allowance. In cases of such settlements, the Supreme Court observed in the case of Herbertsons Ltd vs. Workmen, AIR 1977 SC 322 : "21. The settlement has to be taken as a package deal and when labour has gained in the matter of wages and if there is some reduction in the matter of dearness allowance so far as the award is concerned, it cannot he said that the settlement was a whole unfair and unjust. 27. 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 J gained the Court will be slow to hold a settlement as unfair and unjust." Following the aforesaid decision in Herbertsons Ltd., the Apex Court again held in the dase of M/s Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. vs. Their Workmen, AIR 1981 SC 2163 : "If the settlement had been arrived at by a vast majority of the concerned workers with their eye open and was also accepted by them in its totallity. Ltd. vs. Their Workmen, AIR 1981 SC 2163 : "If the settlement had been arrived at by a vast majority of the concerned workers with their eye open and was also accepted by them in its totallity. It must be presumed to be just and fair and not liable to be ignored while deciding the reference merely because a small number of workers (in this case 71, i.e. 11,18 percent) were not parties to it or refused to accept it, or because the Tribunal was of the opinion that the workers deserved marginally higher emoluments than they themselves thought they did." The aforesaid discussion would show that the petitioners have not been able to make out a strong prima facie case that the rates of Special Area Allowance for the State of Nagaland fixed for the petitioners in the 5th Bipartite Settlement were unjust and unfair or that they were vitiated by malafide or were otherwise illegal. 11. In the judgment dated 30.11.88 in Civil Revision No. 10 (H) 87 of My Lord Hansaria, J, it has been held that a suit filed by the employees to enforce the rates of Special Area Allowance which have not been fixed by any agreement under section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was maintainable and that irreparable injury will be suffered by the employees if a temporary injunction is not granted restraining the bank from depriving the employees of such rates of Special Area Allowance, but in the said judgment there is no discussion whatsoever on the prima facie case of the employees in the suit because no contention on the prima facie case of the employees in the suit was raised before the Court in that case and the temporary injunction was granted by the trial Court on being satisfied with the prima facie case of the employees in the suit. In the present case, since the petitioners have not been able to satisfy either the trial Court or this Court that they had a strong prima facie case in the suit, I am not inclined to grant temporary injunction as prayed for by the petitioners, but I make it clear that the findings given herein are all prima facie finding and shall not influence the trial Court in deciding the suit either on the question of maintainability or on the merit of the suit. 12. 12. Considering, however, the fact that the Special Area Allowance has been drawn by the petitioners as a result of the status quo order dated 15.5.89 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Dimapur, and the interim order dated 3.11.89 passed by this Court, I dispose of this civil revision with the direction that the excess amounts already drawn by the petitioners shall not be recovered by the respondent Nos.4 to 10 from the petitioners until the suit is disposed of by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Dimapur who shall make efforts to dispose of the suit as early as possible preferably within six months from today. This order, however, will not stand in the way of the respondent Nos.4 to 10 recovering the excess amount from any of the petitioners retiring from service or leaving service before the disposal of the suit. The LCRs be sent back forthwith. No costs.