Judgment S. N. Jha, J. 1. This letters patent appeal is by the respondents of the connected writ petition. The respondents (hereinafter called the writ petitioners)filed the writ petition CWJC No.6464 of 1994 for quashing the office order dated 4.7.94 issued by Shri A. K. Prasad, divisional Manager, Patna Divisional office of National Textile Corporation (West Bengal, Bihar, Assam and Orissa)Ltd. (the Corporation, in short) directing that the previous office order dated 22-6-94 shall be kept in abeyance till further instructions from the Calcutta corporate Office, and for a direction to the Corporation to pay the House Rent allowance (HRA), along with arrears, to them and other similarly situate persons under the Patna Marketing division at the rates at which the allowance was being paid to the employees of Gauhati and Calcutta marketing Divisions, as per the agreement entered into between the management and the employees union on 9-2-94. 2. The writ petitioners are employed as Salesman, Senior Salesman and Shop Manager in the Marketing division, Patna. The corporate office of the Corporation is at Calcutta. It has divisional offices at Gauhati, Calcutta and Bhubneshwar, besides Patna. According to the petitioners, on 9-2-94 negotiations were held between the representatives of the Corporation and the employees of the Patna Division Office. As per the agreement arrived at as a result of the negotiations, it was, inter alia, decided that HRA @ 5% of the wages of the employees working under the Patna Division Office would be paid from 1-1-94. An order was accordingly issued on 22-6-94, contained in Memo no.1383 of the Divisional Office, Patna, stating that sanction for payment of the hra at the aforementioned rate with effect from 1-1-94 was accorded. It was further stated in the office order that the amount of enhanced HRA will be added in the salary bill from the month of June, 1994 and the arrear from january to May, 1994 will be paid in instalments subject to availability of funds. However, before payment could be made in terms of the said office order, the impugned order as contained in memo No.1457 dated 4-7-94 was issued keeping the previous order in abeyance till further instructions from the Calcutta Corporate Office. 3. According to the writ petitioners, the employees under Calcutta and Gauhati Divisional Office are getting HRA @ 5%. However, before payment could be made in terms of the said office order, the impugned order as contained in memo No.1457 dated 4-7-94 was issued keeping the previous order in abeyance till further instructions from the Calcutta Corporate Office. 3. According to the writ petitioners, the employees under Calcutta and Gauhati Divisional Office are getting HRA @ 5%. The employees under Patna Divisional Office are similarly situate but similar treatment is being denied to them. The action of the corporation is, therefore, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. According to the appellants, the minutes of the proceedings dated 9-2-94 was in the nature of proposal to pay hra and the same cannot be terms as a decision which is evident from the fact that it was not signed either by the director (Personnel) or Deputy general Manager (Marketing) who had represented the management in the discussions. The proposal was not approved by the Chairman-cum-Managing director. Besides, the consent of the holding Company, namely, The National Textile Corporation (NTC) was also necessary as per the Articles of Association of the Corporation. According to the appellants further, the employees working in the Calcutta Divisional Office and Gauhati Divisional Offices stand on different footing. While the employees of Calcutta office were being paid HRA in view of the statutory requirement under the provisions of a local Act called The West Bengal workmen House Rent Allowance Act, 1974 (West Bengal Act 56 of 1974), the employees of the Gauhati Office were being paid the allowance pursuant to agreement between the employees of the said division and the management by virtue of which the employees had agreed to work on one additional day during the week and had also agreed for rationalisation and/or closure of showroom which was running in loss and transfer of employees to other divisions. It was in consideration of these offers that the Management had agreed to pay the allowances. However, the Board of Management of the Corporation had approved in principle the proposal to withdraw the HRA, being given to the employees of the Gauhati divisional Office, and clearance of holding company for such withdrawal was awaited. It was in consideration of these offers that the Management had agreed to pay the allowances. However, the Board of Management of the Corporation had approved in principle the proposal to withdraw the HRA, being given to the employees of the Gauhati divisional Office, and clearance of holding company for such withdrawal was awaited. According to the appellants further the Corporation has been suffering substantial loss and it is not in a position to take additional financial burden by paying HRA, The appellants have also taken the plea that several references under the Industrial Disputes act between the employees and the management are pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, Patna which cover the claim regarding HRA on these grounds the appellants submitted that the writ petition was not maintainable and the same should be dismissed. 5. Learned Single Judge rejected the plea of the appellants regarding financial constraints. He came to the conclusion that the employees of the patna Divisional Office are similarly situate and, therefore, not giving similar benefit to the employees of the Patna division Office amounts to discrimination and the action of the appellant is, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the constitution. As regards the validity or finality of the minutes of proceedings dated 9-2-94 the learned Single Judge held that the meeting was attended by the Director (Personnel) and Deputy general Manager (Marketing), besides divisional Manager (Marketing division, Patna) and Assistant Manager (HRD), Marketing Division, Patna. Being party to the decision it is of no consequence if they did not sign the minutes. The learned Single Judge in this connection rejected the plea of the appellants that the decision to grant hra was subject to approval by the chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation and/or the holding company. 6. Mr. K. D. Chatterjee learned counsel for the appellants, raised four contentions. He submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge amounts to making industrial adjudication. Having regard to the pendency of reference under the Industrial Disputes act between the same parties or even otherwise, a dispute of the present nature should have been left to be decided by Industrial/labour Court. Secondly, it was contended that the learned Single judge has erred in treating unequals as equals, while allowing the benefits of the House Rent Allowance, by treating the employees of the Patna Calcutta and gauhati Divisional Offices on the same footing. Secondly, it was contended that the learned Single judge has erred in treating unequals as equals, while allowing the benefits of the House Rent Allowance, by treating the employees of the Patna Calcutta and gauhati Divisional Offices on the same footing. Thirdly, the reasoning and the conclusions of the learned Single Judge are in complete violation of the Articles of Association. It was submitted by that the Corporation is bound by its own Articles of Association, Clause 97 whereof provides for approval of certain decisions by the Holding Company, i. e. NTC. Lastly, it was contended, the impugned judgment may affect the employees in other regions and divisions in the country. 7. Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the provisions of Clause 97 of the Articles of Association have no application. He contended that the National textile Corporation (West Bengal,assam, Bihar and Orissa)Ltd. is an independent company and is competent to take decisions of the own. He pointed out with reference to Annexure-C to the supplementary counter affidavit, that hra was allowed to the employees of associated Industries (Assam) Spinning unit and the Retail Marketing Division of Assam by the then Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD) Sri S. K. Chakravorty without seeking approval of the National Textile Corporation. He submitted that HRA was being uniformally paid to the employees in both gauhati and Calcutta Divisions and the submission of the counsel for the appellants that allowing HRA @ 5% to the employees in the Marketing Division, patna would amount to treating une-quals as equals is not correct. As regards the plea that the agreement entered into between the employees representatives and the managements representative dated 9-2-94 was not binding for the reason that the same was not signed by the representatives of the management, it was submitted that if that was the position the management should have disowned the agreement as a whole but as would appear from the averments made in paragraph-9 of the reply affidavit filed by the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge, other items of the agreement have been implemented by the management. Regarding the power of this Court to issue direction for payment of HRA counsel submitted that where there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution it is open to the High Court in its writ jurisdiction to issue such direction. Regarding the power of this Court to issue direction for payment of HRA counsel submitted that where there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution it is open to the High Court in its writ jurisdiction to issue such direction. Reference was made to Reserve Bank of India v. Pearless General Finance Investment co. Ltd,. (19%) 1 SCC 642 and LIC of india V/s. Consumer Education and Research Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811 . 8. I have perused the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the national Textile Corporation (West Bengal, Assam, Bihar and Orissa) Ltd. It appears that 98% of the equity shares of the company are held by the National textile Corporation Limited (NTC)while 1% of the equity share is held by one Dr. Umakant Bhattacharya, Deputy regional Controller of the same National Textile Corporation Ltd. There cannot be any doubt that National Textile Corporation Ltd. is the holding company and the Corporation is its subsidiary company. Other provisions of the Articles also make it clear that the control of the NTC over the Corporation is all-pervasive. Clause 97 relied upon by the counsel for the appellants deals with the powers of the Chairman. It provides that the Chairman shall reserve for the decision of the NTC any proposal or decision of the Board, or of any committee thereof, on any matter which in his opinion is of such importance as to be reserved for the approval of the NTC. No action is to be taken by the company in respect of any such proposal or decision reserved for approval of the NTC until the approval to the same has been obtained. 9. The minutes of the meeting dated 9-2-94, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, no doubt, incorporates the fact that the Union addressed the demand for payment of house Rent Allowance, as was being paid to the employee of Gauhati and calcutta Marketing Division, and the same was accepted in these words, ". . . . . . it was agreed that the employees of the patna Marketing Division would be paid hra at the rate of 5% of wages with effect from 1-1-94. " It is, however, significant to mention here, as indicated above, that while the minutes bear the signatures of Unions representatives, the Director (Personnel) and the deputy General Manager (Marketing)of the company did not put their signatures. " It is, however, significant to mention here, as indicated above, that while the minutes bear the signatures of Unions representatives, the Director (Personnel) and the deputy General Manager (Marketing)of the company did not put their signatures. It is true that on the side of the management the Divisional Manager, marketing Division, Patna and Assistant manager (HRD) Marketing Division, patna who participated in the deliberations appear to have put their signatures on 21-6-94 but that was/is of no consequence. From Annexure-B to the counter affidavit it appears that on 27-5-94 Chairman-cum-Mg. Director, in charge had stayed implementation of "such orders and instructions which had not been given effect to till that date". According to the respondents, the letter communicating the said order was received in Patna Divisional Office on 23-6-94, i. e. after the Divisional manager and the Assistant Manager (HRD) had put their signatures and the office order sanctioning HRA had been issued on 22-6-94. Counsel for the writ petitioners in this connection referred to paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit of respondent No.4, the Divisional manager. It is, however, significant to mention here that the deponent of the said affidavit namely Shri Ashoka kumar Prasad is the same person who had signed the alleged agreement on 21-6-94 and had issued the office order sanctioning the HRA on 22-6-94. Counsel for the appellants submitted that in the circumstances the signatures were appended and the office order was issued create a lurking doubt that the divisional Manager and the Assistant manager (HRD) being local officers had done so with knowledge about the office order dated 27-5-94 staying implementation in order to help the local employees and now, in order to save their own skin, have come out with a plea that the said office order dated 27-5-94 was received in the divisional office at Patna on 23-6-94. The submission of the appellants counsel in the facts of the case cannot be brushed aside. I would add that there is no material except a general averment, to show that the communication regarding the office order dated 27-5-94 was received on 23-6-94. 10 As regards giving equal treatment to the employees of the Patna divisional Office, as is being given to their counterparts in Calcutta and gauhati Marketing Divisions, I am satisfied that HRA was/is being paid to the employees of Calcutta and Gauhati divisions in different circumstances. 10 As regards giving equal treatment to the employees of the Patna divisional Office, as is being given to their counterparts in Calcutta and gauhati Marketing Divisions, I am satisfied that HRA was/is being paid to the employees of Calcutta and Gauhati divisions in different circumstances. In the case of employees of Calcutta divisional Office, it was not an independent decision of the management to pay HRA, while in the case of Gauhati division the management agreed to pay the same in consideration of the employees offer to work on an additional day and having the staffing pattern rationalised and surplus staff transferred to other divisions. Even that decision is under reconsideration. The finding of the learned Single Judge regarding violation of Article 14 of the constitution therefore does not appear to be correct. 11. So far as the question of giving hra pursuant to the alleged agreement between the management and the employees Association is concerned, I do not think Annexure A (to the counter affidavit filed before the learned single Judge), allegedly incorporating the terms of the settlement, amounted to any binding agreement. Firstly, it does not contain the signatures of the managements representatives except those of the local officers (whose assent to the alleged agreement cannot bind the management) ; secondly, even if Annexure A is held to constitute valid, concluded and binding agreement, it was subject to approval by the Chairman-cum-Mg. Director as well as the holding company, i. e. NTC. There is nothing to indicate that the Director (Personnel) and Dy. General Manager (Marketing) (who in any event did not sign the minutes of the proceeding) were authorised to finally decide the terms of the agreement. And even if it was so, it was subject to the consent of the holding company, i. e. NTC. The argument put forward by the counsel for the writ petitioners that since other parts of the agreement Annexure A had been acted upon by the management, it is not open to it to disown the other party relating to grant of HRA, is of no avail to him. It may well be that the management finally accepted the other parts of the agreement and implemented the same but that does not mean that whole of the agreement would be deemed to be approved. It may well be that the management finally accepted the other parts of the agreement and implemented the same but that does not mean that whole of the agreement would be deemed to be approved. In any view, as noticed above, the decision had been kept in abeyance by the corporate office. The employees, therefore, could not have derived any right/privileges under the same. 12. Another important aspect of the matter is that the learned single judge assumed the role of the Labour court. There cannot be any doubt that house Rent Allowance is component of fair wage. Any dispute relating thereto should have therefore been raised before the Industrial/labour Court particularly when the industrial courts were in seisin of different kinds of industrial dispute. Even in so adjudicating upon the claim of the writ petitioners, the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the management could not be compelled to give benefits to its employees which would result in additional financial burden. In Dalmia Dadri cement Limited V/s. Their Workmen, 1963 (2) LLJ 64 the Supreme Court following its earlier decision in the case of Patna electric Supply Company Ltd. V/s. Patna electric Supply Workers Union, 1959 (2)LLJ 366 held that at the present stage of our national economy it would not be expedient for Industrial Tribunals to impose upon the employers the liability to provide housing accommodation to its employees. In that case the Industrial tribunal had passed the award to the effect, inter alia, that watch and Ward Staff (Chowkidars) should be provided with rent-free family quarters. The Supreme court observed that the Tribunal did not consider the financial liability involved in providing additional quarters. It may be stated here that in the Patna electric Supply Companys case (supra)the Supreme Court had also upheld the contention of the management to the effect that allowing the claim with respect to housing accommodation might giving rise the similar demand from employees in other allied or similar industries which would inevitably impose financial burden on the employer and that may materially affect the industrial progress. The decision in the Patna Electric Supply Companys case has been followed by the Supreme court in cases reported in 16 FJR 259 and 21 FJR 200. The decision in the Patna Electric Supply Companys case has been followed by the Supreme court in cases reported in 16 FJR 259 and 21 FJR 200. Reference may also be made to decision of the Andhra Pradesh high Court in the case of Andhra pradesh Chemicals and Fertilisers Majdoor Sabha V/s. Hyderabad Chemicals and fertilisers Ltd. and Ors. , 1974 (2) LLJ 170. 13. In the above premises, I am of the opinion that direction of the learned single Judge to give House Rent Allowance to the writ petitioners is not in accordance with law. The judgment and order under appeal is accordingly set aside. This letters patent appeal is thus allowed. There will be no order as to costs.