JUDGMENT : 1. Shri Rajinder Sachhar, Shri Jitendra Sharma, Shri M.S. Ganesh and Ms. Urmila Sirur, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted after the matters were heard that the more appropriate course for these workman is to raise an industrial dispute to be decided on reference by a competent Tribunal in which all the relevant material could be produced to support the workmens' claim for parity in the pay structure between the workmen in the mills and those employed in the Head Offices/Corporate/ City offices, instead of filling writ petitions either under Article 32 or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submitted that the deficiency in the material available for decision of these mattres is the result of not availing the ordinary remedy of adjudication of the industrial dispute through reference to the Tribunal. Learned counsel submit that the workmen of these categories on whose behalf the matters have been filed constitute majority of the workmen of this kind and it is only a comparatively much smaller number of similar workmen who are covered by C.A. No. 14572/96 and T.P. (C) Nos. 289/90/88 belonging to the eastern region, represented by Shri Tapas Ray instructed by Shri H.K. Puri. 2. Shri Shekhar Naphde, learned counsel for the N.T.C., who represents the Management in all these matters very fairly stated that it is appropriate that the workmen should have an opportunity to have their claim adjudicated on merits with all the material evidence available for the purpose through a reference by a tribunal. He submitted that he accepts the suggestion made on behalf of the workmen in these matters, to have the dispute so resolved on a reference being made to the competent Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/ petitioners in these matters sought leave to withdraw these matters with liberty to raise the industrial dispute and have the same adjudicated on a reference being made for this purpose by the appropriate Govt. to the competent Tribunal. 4. In view of this stand taken by the majority of the workmen, we enquired from Shri Ray, learned counsel for the respondents in C.A. No. 14572/96 and TP(C) Nos. 289- 90/88 whether these workmen also would join in the prayer made by the majority of the workmen. to the competent Tribunal. 4. In view of this stand taken by the majority of the workmen, we enquired from Shri Ray, learned counsel for the respondents in C.A. No. 14572/96 and TP(C) Nos. 289- 90/88 whether these workmen also would join in the prayer made by the majority of the workmen. Shri Ray on instructions stated that these remaining workmen are represented by a different union which does not join in the prayer made by the majority of the workmen. 5. Shri Ray submitted that his instructions are to contend that by the order of the Calcutta High Court made in Civil Rule No. 692 (W)/ 83 dated 1.3/86 by U.C. Banerjee, J. which became final on account of appeal against the same being withdrawn by the Management on 20.5.86 and, thereafter, the special leave petition of the Management being dismissed by this Court, and order dated 7.10.88 made by A.K. Sen Gupta, J. of the High Court in Civil Order No. 11793 (W)/88 which is under challenge in Civil Appeal No. 14572/96, the right of these remaining workmen has crystalised and they are entitled to the relief already granted by the High Court by the aforesaid orders dated 21.3.86 and 7.10.88. His further submission is that these orders of the High Court read with some interim orders made in these proceedings by this Court have conferred certain rights finally to these remaining workmen and, therefore, the question of any fresh adjudication thereof does not arise. The submission, in substance is, that these remaining workmen who are stated to be about 700 in the eastern region as against the majority of approximately 7000 workman are entitled to be treated differently on the basis of the orders of the High Court already made irrespective of the outcome in the proceedings relating to the majority of the workmen belonging admittedly to the same class. We would dispose of this submission at this stage. 6. The aforesaid order dated 21.3.86 by U.C. Banerjee, J. in the Calcutta High Court against which the appeal of the Management was withdrawn and the special leave petition was dismissed by this Court, does not grant any relief to these workmen or decide anything finally. We would dispose of this submission at this stage. 6. The aforesaid order dated 21.3.86 by U.C. Banerjee, J. in the Calcutta High Court against which the appeal of the Management was withdrawn and the special leave petition was dismissed by this Court, does not grant any relief to these workmen or decide anything finally. The only thing done by that order, apart from making certain observations, which obviously cannot be construed as adjudication on merits, was to remit the matter for consideration by the appropriate authority without granting any relief to the workmen therein. Accordingly, withdrawal of the Management's appeal against that order and the dismissal of the special leave petition by this Court does not benefit these workmen in any manner since the order made by U.C. Banerjee, J. itself does not confer any benefit to these workmen. This order, therefore, is of no practical significance in this context. The other order dated 7.10.88 of A.K. Sen Gupta, J. in Civil Order No. 11793(W)/88 is the subject matter of C.A. No. 14572/96 being heard by us as a connected matter. Suffice it to say that the said order dated 7.10.88 being under challenge in C.A. No. 14572/96, the question of claiming any right on the basis of that order treating it is a final does not arise. 7. In our opinion, if the majority of the workmen in the other matters are granted leave to withdraw those, matters with the liberty aforesaid, that by itself would be a sufficient reason to set aside the impugned order dated 7.10.88 by the High Court. Moreover, the claim being based on disputed question n of fact and the burden being on the workmen to show inequality so that in case of inadequacy of evidence the argument would fail, a proceeding either under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court or under Article 32 of the Constitution in this Court would be inappropriate in the present case. It is infact the realisation of this fact in the other matters by the learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners which has led to the prayer made on behalf of the workmen represented by other unions for permission to withdraw those matters with liberty to raise the same as an industrial dispute for adjudication by the Tribunal. It is infact the realisation of this fact in the other matters by the learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners which has led to the prayer made on behalf of the workmen represented by other unions for permission to withdraw those matters with liberty to raise the same as an industrial dispute for adjudication by the Tribunal. So far as the interim orders of this Court are concerned, it is sufficient to say that an interim order made in these proceedings cannot conclude the matter inasmuch as the final order made by this Court is to cover any issue. An interim order is made in aid of the final relief to be granted in the case and, therefore, there is no question of considering an interim order as the final relief itself. 8. We have also formed the opinion that in view of several years by now, it would be more appropriate if the parties discuss the matter between them to explore the possibility of an agreed solution at this stage itself since considerable material in one form or the other has already been brought on record by them. It would be the best solution under the circumstances if the matter can be so concluded because a reference made for adjudication by a Tribunal now would also take a long time to conclude. It is in the interest of the workmen as well as the Management that they arrive at a reasonable settlement so that further time and expense of both sides is avoided and such a settlement conducive to industrial peace is reached between them. 9. We are also informed that in respect of Tamil Nadu Region, some settlement has already been made. If that be so, it may be easier for both sides to reach an amicable settlement in respect of the remaining disputes. The learned Additional Solicitor General who appears for the Union of India, .assures us that in keeping with the duty required of the Central Govt., effort would be made by him to ensure that the parties are able to reach an amicable settlement so as to end this controversy without any further delay. 10. In view of the fact that we have rejected the argument made by Shri Tapas Ray, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in C.A. No. 14572/96 and TP(C) Nos. 10. In view of the fact that we have rejected the argument made by Shri Tapas Ray, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in C.A. No. 14572/96 and TP(C) Nos. 289-90/88, the order made by us and the decision ultimately reached would cover all the workmen including those in C.A. No. 14572/96 belonging to the eastern region. 11. List the matters on 29.4.97 as part- heard. W.P. (C) No. 1285/87 12. This petition is delinked and be listed separately on 29.4.97.