P.Sathasivam, J.: Since the issue in all these matters is similar and identical, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment. 2. Writ Appeal No.996 of 1994 is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 29.4.1994 made in W.P. No.17566 of 1992, wherein the learned Judge dismissed the said writ petition holding that, there is no illegality in bringing into existence of the new fitment formula with retrospective effect. Against the said dismissal, All India Punjab National Bank Officers’ Association has preferred the above appeal. 3. Writ Appeal No.2003 of 1992 is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 24.7.1992 made in W.P. No.1484 of 1991, wherein the learned Judge allowed the writ petition filed by Syndicate Bank Officers’ Association by quashing the fitment formula in Circular No.34 dated 27.10.1990. Against the said order, Syndicate Bank has filed the above writ appeal. 4. Writ Appeal No.459 of 1993 is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 4.12.1992 made in W.P. No.165 of 1991, wherein the learned Judge following the order in W.P. No.1484 of 1991, allowed the writ petition and passed similar order. Against the said order, Syndicate Bank filed the above appeal. 5. Writ Appeal No.4 of 2001 is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 1.8.2000 made in W.P. No.18960 of 1992, wherein the learned Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by All India Allahabad Bank Officers’ Association by Circular No.2862 dated 17.2.1992. Against the said order, Allahabad Bank has filed the above appeal. 6. Writ Petition No.1481 of 1991 is filed by All India Bank Officers’ Confederation represented by its Tamil Nadu State Unit against Indian Banks Association and Union of India questioning the fitment formula in Circular No.840, dated 8.8.1990 and prayed for a direction to continue to adopt the fitment formula adopted by the respondents in respect of clerks promoted to officer cadre between 1.11.1987 to 30.6.1989 in Public Sector Banks. 7. The case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.17566 of 1992 (appellant in W.A.No.966 of 1994) is briefly stated hereunder: The petitioner All India Punjab National Bank Officers’ Association is a registered Trade Union representing only officer employees of the respondent- Bank. It is an affiliate unit of the All India Bank Officers’ Confederation representing all Public Sector Banks throughout India. It is an affiliate unit of the All India Bank Officers’ Confederation representing all Public Sector Banks throughout India. It is the action of the first respondent, which is a Nationalised Bank, in signing a wage settlement affecting the Officers with a Trade Union which represents only Award Staff i.e., clerical and subordinate workmen category of employees which is impugned in this writ petition. This settlement has not only caused grievous prejudice to the officer employees, but is also opposed to a settlement signed with the Confederation of Officers’ Union to the extent that it retrospectively affects the fitment of promotee officers. 8. The first respondent has two types of employees, namely Award Staff and the Officer Staff. The wage of the Award Staff are settled at the industrial level with the All India Bank Employees Association (hereinafter called as AIBEA) and National Confederation of Bank Employees (hereinafter called as NCBE), both representing only the Award Staff. The All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation (hereinafter called as AIPNBEF) is an affiliate of the said AIBEA. The wages of the Officers Staff are settled at the industrial level with All India Bank Officers Confederation (hereinafter called as AIBOC), which represents only Officers Staff and to which the petitioner Association is affiliated. 9. When an Award Staff from the category of Clerk or Special Assistant is promoted to the next higher category as Officer in JMG Scale-B, he is fitted at the appropriate stage in the officer grade and for this purpose a fitment formula is necessarily required. Till 1986, this fitment formula in respect of such promotee officers was laid down at bank level and consequently there were different formula for different banks. The last such fitment formula in the respondent bank prior to the present cause of action was finalised on 18.3.1986 as per P.D. Circular No.928 and made effective retrospectively from 1.7.1983. 10. In or about 19.4.1989, the Fifth Bipartite Settlement was signed between the aforesaid AIBEA and NCBE and Indian Banks Association (hereinafter called as IBA) representing the employees. This settlement was confined only to the Award Staff in the entire banking industry. 11. In 1989, the IBA itself internally advised all banks that fitment of the promotees during the period 1.11.1987 to 30.6.1989 should be made as per the settlement with the aforesaid AIBOC. This settlement was confined only to the Award Staff in the entire banking industry. 11. In 1989, the IBA itself internally advised all banks that fitment of the promotees during the period 1.11.1987 to 30.6.1989 should be made as per the settlement with the aforesaid AIBOC. The revision of wages of the Award Staff of the first respondent- Bank was made with effect from 1.9.1978, 1.7.1983 and 1.11.1987 in terms of third, fourth and fifth Bipartite settlements. Likewise, a separate wage revision for the officers of the first respondent- Bank took place with effect from 1.7.1989, 1.2.1984 and 1.11.1987 on the basis of which settlement arrived at between the IBA and AIBOC. 12. The first respondent- Bank had introduced a fitment formula for the promotee officers from clerical cadre in terms of P.D. Circular No.928 dated 18.3.1986 on the basis of settlement arrived at between management and AIPNBEF during the course of conciliation proceedings held on 12.4.1986. The said fitment formula was applicable to all officers who were promoted to Junior Management Grade I on or after 1.7.1983. 13. The wages of Award Staff underwent a revision after the Fifth Bipartite Settlement in April, 1989 to be made effective from 1.11.1987. Consequent upon the revision of pay scales, both for Award Staff and Officers agreed in 1989 to be effective retrospectively from 1.11.1987 a need arose for a revised fitment formula for the promotees to Junior Management Grade 1 from clerical cadre from 1.11.1987. All the members of the petitioner Association are entitled to get fitment on the revised fitment formula provided for in the settlement with effect from 1.11.1987. 14. While such is the position, the respondent- Bank has introduced a fitment formula for the promotees from clerical cadre who were promoted on and from 1.11.1987 vide its Circular No.1313 dated 12.12.1991. The aforesaid settlement is retrograde and prejudicially affects the members of the petitioner Association inasmuch as it reduces the fitment of the promotee officers by one/two stages in the basic pay from the fitment formula provided for in the settlement with AIPOC dated 11.6.1989. The petitioner Association submitted its representation to the first respondent on 28.5.1992. The first respondent- Bank has rejected the representation of the petitioner Association by its letter dated 27.9.1992 without considering the same on merits. Aggrieved by the illegal action of the respondent- Bank, the Officers Association filed Writ Petition No.17566 of 1992. The petitioner Association submitted its representation to the first respondent on 28.5.1992. The first respondent- Bank has rejected the representation of the petitioner Association by its letter dated 27.9.1992 without considering the same on merits. Aggrieved by the illegal action of the respondent- Bank, the Officers Association filed Writ Petition No.17566 of 1992. 15. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a common counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the petitioner Officers Association have no locus standi to file the present writ petition questioning the settlement entered into between the All India Punjab National Bank Employees Confederation and the Punjab National Bank under Sec.12(3) of the industrial Disputes Act, before the Central Labour Commission. The settlement has been entered into between the Union representing the clerical staff and the Bank. The promotion of the clerical staff to the officers cadre always being governed by validly entered settlement. This had been the practice in this Bank from the date of its inspection. This particular settlement deals with the fitment of the clerical staff in the promoted category of officer. The Officers Association who has absolutely no say or connection with the impugned circular and settlement cannot set at naught a settlement entered into between the Bank and the Federation. 16. Regarding the merits, it is stated that the Bank has been entering into a settlement with All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation Union with regard to the promotion of clerks and special assistants to the post of officers and also fitment of the promotees. On 7.3.1978, a settlement was reached between the Bank and the All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation before the Chief Labour Commissioner, New Delhi. The settlement deals with the promotion and also fitment of clerks and special assistants. Clause No.6 of the settlement deals with the same. As per this clause, the fitment formula in respect of basic pay, dearness allowance and other allowances was arrived and the same has also been extracted in the settlement itself. The settlement is a comprehensive one and deals with all aspects, namely promotion and consequences flowing from the refusal of the employees to opt for promotion etc. This settlement dated 7.3.1978 was effective from 1.1.1978 and it was valid for a period of three years upto 31.12.1980. The settlement is a comprehensive one and deals with all aspects, namely promotion and consequences flowing from the refusal of the employees to opt for promotion etc. This settlement dated 7.3.1978 was effective from 1.1.1978 and it was valid for a period of three years upto 31.12.1980. As per the said settlement, the fitment of Junior Management Grade Scale I was made on the basis of basic pay in clerical cadre. Further, after such fitment as Junior Management Grade Scale I an officer will draw his future increment on the anniversary date of his last increment. A very comprehensive settlement was reached on 16.7.1980 with regard to the fitment. 17. After this settlement another settlement was reached on 30.3.1984, which took care of the clerks and special assistants who have reached the calling in clerical cadre and enable them to get a stagnation increment in that cadre in terms of the Bipartite settlement dated 8.9.1983 and have been promoted as Accountant on or after 1.1.1980. The demand raised on 11.7.1990 by the federation was settled during the course of conciliation proceedings on 17.7.1990. In the meantime, the pay scales of workmen employees were revised with effect from 1.11.1987 by an Industrial level settlement 4th Bipartite settlement dated 10.4.1989. Therefore, the pay scale of officers were also revised by the Board of Directors on 7.3.1990. Clause 1(a) of the impugned settlement clearly deals with the fitment of clerks and special assistants from 1.11.1987 to 31.12.1989 as Officer in JMG Scale 1. 18. The settlement with regard to fitment of those employees who are promoted from clerical cadre after 1.11.1987 has rightly been signed with the employees federation under the provisions of I.D. Act, because the settlements are being signed in their Bank historically with the Employees Federation for this purpose. The settlement deals with promotion of clerical staffs/ junior assistants to the post of Officers. The clerical staff and junior assistants are workmen under the industrial Disputes Act. Pursuant to the demand raised by the Federation, the impugned settlement has been reached. The allegation that the settlement adversely affects the writ petitioner is absolutely without any substance. The principle of equal pay for equal work was applicable amongst the equals and cannot be made applicable amongst these, who are not equal on all the counts. Pursuant to the demand raised by the Federation, the impugned settlement has been reached. The allegation that the settlement adversely affects the writ petitioner is absolutely without any substance. The principle of equal pay for equal work was applicable amongst the equals and cannot be made applicable amongst these, who are not equal on all the counts. In the present case there is no ground to state that the said principle has been violated by the Bank. 19. The petitioner Association filed a reply affidavit repudiating all the allegations and reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed at the first instance. 20. The case of the Syndicate Bank Officers Association in W.P. No.1484 of 1991 is briefly stated hereunder: The petitioner is an Association having its members Officers of the Syndicate Bank and has been registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The wages of the workmen- staff employed by the respondent- Bank were revised with effect from 1.9.1978, 1.7.1983 and 1.11.1987 in terms of third, fourth and Fifth Bipartite Settlements. The wage revision of the officers took place with effect from 1.7.1979, 1.2.1984 and 1.11.1987. The wages of workmen staff underwent revision after the fifth Bipartite Settlement in April, 1989 and thereafter the salaries of the officer employees were revised. The revision in the pay scale was given retrospective effect from 1.11.1987. In respect of promotions made till 30.6.1989, the fitment formula adopted by the respondent- Bank in 1986 was followed. The formula adopted was that fitment would take place in the old pay scale of the officer (prior to 1.11.1987) and then the fitment would take place at the appropriate stage in the new pay scales of the officers. However, the respondent- Bank unilaterally changed the fitment formula by its circular No.34/0090/SMC/P.D.(1), dated 27.10.1990. The reason given by the respondent is that Indian Bank Association has revised its guideline for fitment for officer cadre by its circular letter dated 8.8.1990. The said fitment formula has been given retrospective effect from 1.7.1989 and the pay of the clerical staff who were promoted on or after 1.7.1989 is now sought to be reduced by adoption of the new formula. A good number of members of the petitioner Association have been adversely affected by the revised fitment formula. The said fitment formula has been given retrospective effect from 1.7.1989 and the pay of the clerical staff who were promoted on or after 1.7.1989 is now sought to be reduced by adoption of the new formula. A good number of members of the petitioner Association have been adversely affected by the revised fitment formula. The Board cannot and whimsically or arbitrarily and by exercise of its powers cannot cause prejudice to the officers by retrospective application nor can, it discriminate amongst equals. 21. While in the old fitment formula, the clerk who was at the 8th stage in clerical pay scale would be fixed at the minimum scale in Junior Management on promotion, in terms of the revised fitment formula, the clerk who is drawing pay upto the 11th stage in the clerical pay scale (Rs.1,700) would be on promotion fixed at the minimum scale of pay in the Junior Management Grade. Thus, every clerk drawing a pay of Rs.1,500 or more would have his pay substantially reduced if his promotion occurred on or after 1.7.1978. The fitment of a clerk on promotion would however he protected by the old formula if his promotion took place between 1.11.1987 and 30.6.1989. As against the arbitrary reduction in pay scales and in the fitment of the clerical staff on promotion to the officers cadre after 1.7.1989, by virtue of the impugned circular letter dated 27.10.1990, the petitioner Association as approached this Court by filing the above writ petition. 22. The respondents filed a common counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that there is no legal infirmity in the fitment formula adopted by the Bank under the impugned circular. Since, (1) it totally satisfies the protection of basic pay drawn by a clerk immediately before his promotion as officer; (2) protection to the total emoluments drawn by a clerk immediately before his promotion as officer; (3) ensures a fair increase in salary on promotion as officer from clerk cadre. Under the impugned formula, an increase in the basic pay in the range of Rs.400.00 to Rs.465.00 has been ensured. After satisfying itself about the legality of the formula and that interests of promotees would not suffer, but would only benefit, the impugned fitment formula recommended by the Indian Banks Association by its guidelines has been accepted and adopted by the respondent- Bank. The impugned formula is lawful and in order. After satisfying itself about the legality of the formula and that interests of promotees would not suffer, but would only benefit, the impugned fitment formula recommended by the Indian Banks Association by its guidelines has been accepted and adopted by the respondent- Bank. The impugned formula is lawful and in order. By circular dated 20.5.1990, it had been made clear that fitment of promotees after 1.11.1987 under the old formula was tentative and subject to new fitment formula to be adopted by the respondent- Bank. The revision in the salary and other allowances of both the officers and the Award Staff and the subsequent increase in dearness allowance etc. resulting in substantial increase in the salary of the officers has necessitated the restructuring of the fitment formula. It was thought fit to treat promotees since 1.7.1989 entitled to all allowances as one group attracting the new formula and that the old formula would be applied to promotees prior to 1.7.1989. As such there is no discrimination as the promotees before 1.7.1989 and after 1.7.1989 are distinct groups and there is no violation of Art.14 as claimed. The impugned formula is neither punitive nor has been effected by way of punishment and as such there is no reason for any prior opportunity to be granted to the petitioner. The guidelines only reflect the consensus reached between the Nationalised Banks with intent to bring about parity in the fitment policy amongst them. The guidelines have been adopted by the respondent- Bank only after its appropriate authority had been satisfied about its legality and benefits to the promotees. There is no violation of any of the provisions of Syndicate Bank Officers Regulations. 23. The petitioner Association has filed a reply affidavit repudiating all the allegations and reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed at the first instance. 24. The petitioners in W.P. No.165 of 1991 (Writ Appeal No.459 of 1993) who are none else than the Syndicate Bank Officers Union and one Mrs. Nalini Vaidyanathan Assistant Manager, Syndicate Banks have prayed for issuance of writ of declaration to declare that the action of the respondents in refixing the salary of the second petitioner and the other similarly placed persons who are promoted as Junior Management Grade Scale I from 16.4.1990 to 11.6.1990 and the implementation of the IBA guidelines dated 8.8.1990 is illegal and arbitrary. They also raised similar averments as found in W.P. No.1484 of 1991, hence we are not referring the same. Likewise, the management Bank has also filed similar counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioners. 25. Since the case of the petitioners in W.P. No.18960 of 1992 (Writ Appeal No.4 of 2001) is similar to the case of Syndicate Bank Officers Association, we are not referring the same once again. Likewise, the respondents- Allahabad Bank have also filed a counter affidavit which is similar to the one filed by Syndicate Bank, which we have already narrated. 26. In Writ Petition No.1481 of 1991, All India Bank Officers’ Confederation, Tamil Nadu State Unit, prayed for issuance of Writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the concerned records from the first respondent pertaining to the fitment formula prescribed in its Circular No.PD/CIB/76/582/840, dated 8.8.1990 and continue to adopt the fitment formula adopted by the respondents in respect of clerks promoted to Officer cadre between 1.11.1987 and 30.6.1989 in Public Sector Banks. Here again, the Officers Federation has raised similar averments as raised by the petitioner in W.P. Nos.17566 of 1992, 1484 of 1991 etc., No one has filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner confederation. However, the counter affidavit filed in the earlier matters govern the issue raised in this writ petition also. 27. With the above pleadings we have heard Mr.K.Chandru, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.966 of 1994 and petitioner in Writ Petition No.1481 of 1991; Mr.A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel for appellants in Writ Appeal No.2003 of 1992, 459 of 1993 and 4 of 2001; Mr.G. Subramanian, learned senior counsel for second respondent in Writ Appeal No.966 of 1994, first respondent in Writ Petition No.1461 of 1991 and Mr.C.K. Chandrasekaran for respondents in Writ Appeal No.459 of 1993. 28. First, we will consider W.A. No.966 of 1994 and later on the other appeals and the writ petition together. We have already narrated the case of both parties in the earlier part of our order. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- All India Punjab National Bank Officers Association would contend that the Settlement dated 10.12.1991, entered into by the Bank with the Employees’ Federation is not binding on the Officers. In other words, according to him, without hearing the officers, the Bank has arrived a fitment. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- All India Punjab National Bank Officers Association would contend that the Settlement dated 10.12.1991, entered into by the Bank with the Employees’ Federation is not binding on the Officers. In other words, according to him, without hearing the officers, the Bank has arrived a fitment. He also contended that, the learned Judge erred in holding that the principle of equal pay for equal work as not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Judge has also committed an error in holding that the officers who have obtained the benefit of 5th Bipartite Settlement related to their wages as workmen, whereas the settlement dated 10.12.1991 related to their pay as officers. 29. It is seen that, the first respondent- Bank introduced a fitment formula for the promotee officers from clerical cadre in terms of P.D. circular dated 18.3.1986 on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the management and AIPNBEF during the course of conciliation proceedings held on 12.3.1986. The said fitment formula was applicable to all officers who were promoted to Junior Management Grade I on or after 1.7.1983. As per the said fitment formula, a clerk promoted as an officer on or after 1.7.1983 and drawing a basic pay of Rs.775.00 was fitted to the corresponding stage of Rs.1,175.00 in the Junior Management Scale of Rs.1,175.00 to Rs.2,675.00. When the wages of Award Staff underwent a revision after the 5th Bipartite Settlement in April, 1989 to be made effective from 1.11.1987, similar wage revision also took place in the case of officers in June, 1989 effective from 1.11.1987. Consequent upon the revision of pay scales, both for Award Staff and Officers agreed in 1989 to be effective retrospectively from 1.11.1987. According to the Bank, a need arose for a revised fitment formula for the promotees to Junior Management Grade I from clerical cadre from 1.11.1987. This fitment, according to the Association/ appellant was decided, when the revision of wages as the officer staff was settled between AIBOC and IBA. While so, the impugned communications introducing new fitment pursuant to a settlement arrived at on 10.12.1991 between the management and the AIPNBEF prejudicially affecting the promotee officers came to be effective with retrospective effect. 30. This fitment, according to the Association/ appellant was decided, when the revision of wages as the officer staff was settled between AIBOC and IBA. While so, the impugned communications introducing new fitment pursuant to a settlement arrived at on 10.12.1991 between the management and the AIPNBEF prejudicially affecting the promotee officers came to be effective with retrospective effect. 30. It is also the grievance of the appellant Association that the settlement dated 10.12.1991 prejudicially affects its members in the sense that it reduces the fitment of promotee officers by one or two stages in the basic pay from the fitment formula provided for in the settlement with AIBOC dated 11.6.1989. It is also their case that the new fitment formula consequent to the settlement arrived at on 10.12.1991 between the management and AIPNBEF represents only the Award Staff is bad in-law as well as in equity and amounts to imposing service conditions upon the members of the appellant Association. In order to highlight their grievance, they also furnished details, such as clerical salary, salary of persons promoted before 1.11.1987 and after 1.11.1987. With reference to those aspects, it is the specific case of the respondent- Bank that the fitment formula was arrived at after mutual discussion between the concerned parties. According to them, it is being arrived then and there after taking into account various aspects like intervening bipartite settlement (Industry wise settlement) Revision of Pay Scales, officers, etc. It is also specifically stated that no settlement has ever been arrived at between All India Bank Officers Confederation and Indian Banks Association in respect of the service conditions of officers at any stage. 31. Close examination of details furnished by both parties clearly show that the fitment formula has been arrived at during the course of conciliation proceedings and the settlement has been signed as per the provisions of Sec.12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short ‘the Act’). As per Sec.19 of the Act, a settlement is binding and effective from the date which is specifically mentioned in the settlement. As such, the retrospective effect given to the settlement cannot be construed as illegal. With regard to the contentions of the appellant Association that, Employees Federation cannot enter into a settlement with the Bank which affects the rights of the Association. As such, the retrospective effect given to the settlement cannot be construed as illegal. With regard to the contentions of the appellant Association that, Employees Federation cannot enter into a settlement with the Bank which affects the rights of the Association. According to the Bank, the fitment on all earlier occasions was determined only on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the Bank and the Employees Federation. It is also seen from the counter affidavit of the Bank that, historically his type of settlement is being entered into with the Employees Federation and the management of the Bank, and therefore, the settlement dated 10.12.1991 cannot now be contended as one violating the principles of natural justice, so far as the appellant Association is concerned. 32. Now, we shall consider whether the settlement arrived at between the Bank and the Employees Federation is valid and in accordance with the provisions of the Act? We have already referred to the specific case of the Bank that the settlement being signed by Punjab National Bank historically with the Employees Federation. It is also relevant to note that the fitment of such employees is a matter which is covered by the definition of industrial dispute as defined under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The perusal of settlement which are enclosed in the typed set of papers clearly show that the Bank has been rightly negotiated by the Employees Federation as to what minimum terms and conditions to be offered to their members, so that they may accept the offer/ promotion to the higher cadre. 33. We have already stated that the case of the appellant Association is that, those officers who are promoted from clerical cadre to officer cadre on or after 1.11.1987, should be given promotion in terms of P.D. Circular 928. For this, the counsel appearing for the Bank had brought to our notice that, Bank had circularised a settlement dated 12.3.1986 entered into between the Bank and the Employees Federation and the management of PNB with regard to fitment of those officers who are promoted from clerical cadre. In such a circumstance, according to the Bank, the conciliation settlement dated 10.12.1991 replaces conciliation settlement dated 13.3.1986 and the conciliation settlement dated 10.12.1991 specifically states that this settlement will come into force with effect from 1.11.1987. In such a circumstance, according to the Bank, the conciliation settlement dated 10.12.1991 replaces conciliation settlement dated 13.3.1986 and the conciliation settlement dated 10.12.1991 specifically states that this settlement will come into force with effect from 1.11.1987. Accordingly, all those workmen who are promoted to officers cadre after 1.11.1987 are necessarily to be covered by the conciliation settlement dated 10.12.1991 and not by the settlement dated 12.3.1986. Inasmuch as the settlement arrived under Sec.12(3) of the Act is after conciliation between the parties concerned, as rightly contended that there is a presumption of fairness in such settlement. Having agreed, after conciliation and deliberation, the management is entitled to implement the settlement. We are satisfied that the management of PNB has not violated any of the statutory provisions as contended. 34. Regarding the guidelines which are circularised by All Indian Banks Association are only directory and not mandatory, there is no dispute that, each Bank is left to adopt the broad suggestions of the IBA according to the situation prevailing in that particular Bank. It is also brought to our notice by the counsel for the Bank that, all the officers concerned accepted the arrears of 5th bipartite settlement of clerical salary, as stated by them and they themselves submitted their case to the jurisdiction of conciliation settlement dated 10.12.1991. We also agree with the contention of the Bank that there is no fitment formula which was agreed upon in any one of the understandings between Officers Association at industry level and the Indian Banks Association. Accordingly there is no question of entering into any settlement by the bank, which is contravention of the said fitment formula, which was settled with the officers association. It is to be noted that the formula regarding fitment of salary to the employees who were promoted from the clerical cadre on or after 1.11.1987 was agreed to between the Bank and All Indian Punjab National Bank Employees Federation being the subject matter of the industrial dispute resolved in a conciliation settlement on 10.12.1991, have the force of law. It is to be noted that the formula regarding fitment of salary to the employees who were promoted from the clerical cadre on or after 1.11.1987 was agreed to between the Bank and All Indian Punjab National Bank Employees Federation being the subject matter of the industrial dispute resolved in a conciliation settlement on 10.12.1991, have the force of law. In view of the assertion by the Bank that the fitment formula “on all earlier occasions” [Italics supplied] was determined only on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the Bank and the Employees Federation and also for the fact that the suggestions given by IBA with regard to fitment formula which may be adopted by the Banks were only directory and not mandatory and as such there is bound to be different positions in different Banks as the fitment formula has been enunciated and sent by different Banks at their own level. In the light of the said conclusion, we are unable to accept the claim of the appellant. 35. The contention relating to equal pay for equal work and the same has been violated by the Bank to the effect that those employees who were promoted before 1.11.1987 were given different fitment than those of the officers who have been promoted on or after 1.11.1987 as officer, the analysis of the particulars furnished show that there is no ground to state that the said principle has been violated by the Bank. It is also relevant to mention that the principle of equal pay for equal work is applicable only among the equals and the same cannot be made applicable amongst those who are not equal on all the counts. After going through the information furnished in the counter affidavit, we are of the view that there is no ground to show that the principle of equal pay for equal work is vitiated in this case. 36. In view of our earlier discussion and also of the fact that the officers having accepted the arrears of salary as per the 5th bipartite settlement, the Bank is right in contending that they are deemed to have submitted their case to the jurisdiction of the conciliation settlement dated 10.12.1991 and if that is so, they cannot be permitted to say that the conciliation cannot bind them. 37. 37. The contention regarding violation of principles of natural justice, new fitment formula, we have already stated that the management has given personal hearings of the representatives of the Association and we are also satisfied that after conciliation, discussion and deliberation, settlement was arrived, hence the appellant Association cannot be permitted to say that they were not heard regarding the matter in issue. We also accept the claim of the management that there was no fitment formula which was agreed upon in any of the understandings between the officers Associations at the industrial level and the Indian Banks Association (IBA). In such a circumstance, there is no question that the management has entered into a settlement with IBA as claimed by the appellant Association. After considering all the above referred materials, the learned Judge has rightly concluded. “27....Above all, the employees who were parties to the settlement and agreed for the fitment formula, on promotion, become officers, namely, JMG Scale I, and that being the admitted position, they must be considered as persons best suited to be a party to arrive at the fitment formula, as it is their future that is involved in new fitment formula...” In the light of the above mentioned factual position, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Judge and reject the contra argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the light of our conclusions writ Appeal 966 of 1994 filed by All India Punjab National Bank Officers Association is liable to be dismissed. 38.Writ Appeal Nos.2003 of 1992, 459 of 1993, 4 of 2001 and Writ Petition No.1481 of 1991: Syndicate Bank Officers Association, aggrieved by the fitment formula prescribed in the Circular No.34, dated 27.10.1980 issued by the Assistant General Manager, Zonal Office, Madras-2 has filed Writ Petition No.1484 of 1991 to quash the same and for direction to the Syndicate Bank to continue and adopt the fitment formula adopted by them in respect of clerks promoted to officers cadre between 1.11.1987 and 30.6.1989. 39. Before the learned Judge, the Syndicate Bank Officers Association contended that the Bank cannot revise the formula unilaterally and more so by giving retrospective effect. It is also stated that the new fitment formula, pay scales which are revised is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. 39. Before the learned Judge, the Syndicate Bank Officers Association contended that the Bank cannot revise the formula unilaterally and more so by giving retrospective effect. It is also stated that the new fitment formula, pay scales which are revised is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. It is also stated that the Bank cannot rely upon the consensus arrived at by the Indian Banks Association which is not a statutory body. After demonstrating the anomaly in the pay scale for the period between 1.11.1987 and 30.6.1989 and after 1.7.1989, it was pointed out that the cut off date was fixed as 1.7.1989 and according to the said cut off date, persons who were promoted before the date and after the date will get two different scales of pay and that the only way to remove the defect is to give the benefit of formula from 1.11.1987 to all. On the other hand, on behalf of the Bank it was contended that, no question of violation of Art.14 of the Constitution, since two groups are entirely different and it cannot be said that the fixation of the said date, namely 1.7.1989 is arbitrary or it has no rationale behind the fixation of such date. 40. After referring the decision of the Apex Court, regarding principle of equal pay for equal work, and after noting that the nature of duties are the same in both categories, the learned Judge arrived at a conclusion that the pay scales in the Government undertakings should not be different from each other i.e., should be similar. The learned Judge has also held that the impugned circular is an violation of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution. In so far as it is given retrospective operation the learned Judge has also concluded, inasmuch as the fitment formula has been done unilaterally and also of the fact that the suggestions/ opinion of the IBA is not mandatory committed an error in following the same and issuing the impugned circular, allowed W.P. No.1484 of 1991. Against the said order of the learned Judge, the Syndicate Bank has preferred W.A. No.2003 of 1992. 41. The very same impugned order was challenged by the Syndicate Bank Officers Union as well as one Nalini Vaidyanathan in W.P. No.165 of 1991. Against the said order of the learned Judge, the Syndicate Bank has preferred W.A. No.2003 of 1992. 41. The very same impugned order was challenged by the Syndicate Bank Officers Union as well as one Nalini Vaidyanathan in W.P. No.165 of 1991. The learned Judge by order dated 4.12.1992, following the ratio laid down in W.P. No.1484 of 1991 dated 24.7.1992, allowed W.P. No.165 of 1991. Against the said order, Syndicate Bank has filed W.A. No.459 of 1993. 42. The All India Allahabad Bank Officers Association, aggrieved by the instruction circular dated 17.2.1992 of the Deputy General Manager (P), Allahabad Bank, Calcutta has filed W.P. No.18960 of 1992 to quash the same and for direction to the respondents to continue to adopt the fitment formula as per the circular letter dated 31.12.1986 in respect of fixation of pay of officers promoted from clerical cadre. Here again, following the earlier orders of this Court referred to above, the learned Judge by order dated 1.8.2000, allowed the writ petition, against which the Allahabad Bank preferred W.A.No.4 of 2001. 43. With regard to the orders passed in the writ petitions, allowing the same quashing the impugned circulars, Mr.A.L. Somayaji, as well as Mr.G. Subramaniam, learned senior counsel would contend that, in so far as Allahabad Bank is concerned, the settlement has not been arrived and it is only a tentative/ provisional agreement. It is also stated that, the impugned circular has reduced the disparity and the reduction of pay scale is factually incorrect. They also contended that giving retrospective effect is also valid. 44. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Association would contend that the Bank cannot revise the formula unilaterally without hearing them and by giving retrospective effect and the learned Judges are perfectly right in quashing the impugned circulars. Before considering the factual contentions raised, we shall consider certain decisions relied on by both side. 45. In the case of Grib Kalyan Kendra Workers Union v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1173, their Lordships have held that, while considering the principle equal pay for equal work, stated that, it is not necessary to find out similarity by mathematical formula, but there must be a reasonable similarity in the nature of work, performance of duties, the qualification and the quality of work performed by them. They also held that, it is permissible to have classification in services based on hierarchy of posts, pay scale, value of work and responsibility and experience. Their Lordships have further held that, the classification must, however, have a reasonable relation to the objection sought to be achieved. 46. In the case of Secretary, Finance Department v. West Bengal Registration Service Association, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1203, their Lordships have held, fixation of pay scale, equation of posts and equation of salary are primary function of executive and the role of judiciary is very limited. 47. In the case of Director, General Rice Research Institution, Cuttack v. K.M.Das, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 122, their Lordships have held that, while making fitment of the existing employees in the new categories/ grades of service, the initial induction should be only on the basis of pay scale. Merely because one possessed the qualification, he cannot claim as a matter of right that he should be fitted into a higher category. 48. In the case of F.C.I. Limited v. Sarat Chandra Rath, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2744, their Lordships have held that, the power to specify a date from which the revision of pay scales or terminal benefits/ pensionary benefits, as the case may be, shall take effect is a constituient of the said power. So long as such date is specified in a reasonable manner, i.e., without bringing about a discrimination between similarity situated persons, no interference is called for by the Court in that behalf. 49. In the case of Associate Bank Officers’ Association v. S.B.I. and others, (1998)1 L.L.J. 1137, the Supreme Court has held that, "3. .... A simplistic approach, granting higher remuneration to other workers in other organisations because another organisation has granted them, may lead to undesirable results. Even within the same organisation, when the differential wage structure is based on similar considerations, the application of the doctrine would be fraught with danger, and may seriously affect the efficiency, and at times, even the functioning of the organisation. The doctrine is designed to correct irrational and inexplicable pay differentiation which can be looked upon as discrimination against an employee or a given set of employees. It is easier to identify such discriminated groups when the discriminated group is sex-based (women) or colour based (Blaoks in the USA) or caste-based. (Scheduled Castes etc.) and more difficult to identify in other cases. It is easier to identify such discriminated groups when the discriminated group is sex-based (women) or colour based (Blaoks in the USA) or caste-based. (Scheduled Castes etc.) and more difficult to identify in other cases. But unless there is much identificable discrimination, the doctrine should not be applied. Mere difference is not discrimination. 50. In the case of K.Thimmappan v. Chairman Central Board of Directors, S.B.I., (2001)2 S.C.C. 259 , the Supreme Court has held that, "If the competent authority on relevant and all germane factors, takes a decision in the matter of placement or fitment, whenever a restructuring of the cadre is made, then the Court will not be justified in examining the basis of such placement or fitment in a mathematical scale and would not ordinarily interfere with such a decision, unless it is established beyond doubt that the decision is totally arbitrary or has been taken in a mala fide manner". 51. In the light of the judicial decisions referred to above, now we shall consider the orders under challenge. It is settled law that, when the nature and duties are same in both categories, the pay scales in the Government undertakings should not differ from each other. The particulars furnished show that the nature and duties are same in the other Banks and it is also admitted that the Indian Bank which is a Nationalised Bank has settled the matter with their staff after conciliation and deliberation. As rightly observed by the learned Judge, we do not think that the officers of the other Bank i.e., Syndicate and Allahabad Bank can be paid at a lower scale of pay than the officers working at Indian Bank. We are satisfied that there is a discrimination. When the members of the Association do the same kind of work, they cannot be discriminated in the matter of scale of pay. 52. Though the appellant Bank had accepted the guidelines/ circular of the IBA, admittedly, the Officers Association were not consulted before issuing the impugned circular regarding the fitment formula. We are satisfied that there is a discrimination. When the members of the Association do the same kind of work, they cannot be discriminated in the matter of scale of pay. 52. Though the appellant Bank had accepted the guidelines/ circular of the IBA, admittedly, the Officers Association were not consulted before issuing the impugned circular regarding the fitment formula. Likewise, though it is stated that on the basis of the guidelines of the IBA, the decision was taken by the higher authority in the Bank, we are satisfied that the fitment formula was revised unilaterally taking the cut of date as on 1.7.1989, without consulting the officers Association without affording opportunity of being heard which cannot be accepted and it is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution as well as principles of natural justice. We have already referred to the fact that in the case of Punjab National Bank, the persons going to be benefitted were consulted and after conciliation a settlement was arrived at between the Employees Federation and the management of the Bank, scale of pay was increased and corresponding fitment formula was arrived. Such has not been followed in Syndicate and Allahabad Bank. 53. In the earlier paragraphs, we have held that the impugned circular in all these three cases has to be set aside on the ground that the condition of service cannot be altered unilaterally. Likewise, it is settled that the benefits acquired under the existing rules cannot be taken away without hearing them that too retrospectively. Though we have upheld the similar action in the Punjab National Bank’s case, since there was a conciliation between the parties concerned consensus and settlement arrived at, as per sections 19 of the Act, the contents of the settlement as well as the relevant date to be implemented are binding on both parties. In these cases, we have already stated that, fitment formula has been unilaterally fixed without hearing the officers Associations and merely on the basis of the circular/ guidelines of the IBA. All these aspects have been correctly considered by the learned Judges who set aside the impugned circular. We are in agreement with the said conclusion and unable to accept the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants in W.A. Nos.2903 of 1992, 159 of 1993 and 4 of 2001. All these aspects have been correctly considered by the learned Judges who set aside the impugned circular. We are in agreement with the said conclusion and unable to accept the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants in W.A. Nos.2903 of 1992, 159 of 1993 and 4 of 2001. In the light of the our conclusion all the three appeals are liable to be dismissed. 54. In Writ Petition No.1481 of 1991 though All India Bank Officers Confederation, Tamil Nadu State Unit has prayed for quashing of the circular dated 8.8.1990 of the first respondents therein I.B.A. and for direction to the respondents to continue to adopt the fitment formula adopted by them in respect of clerks promoted to officers cadre between 1.11.1987 to 30.6.1989, we are not constrained to grant such omnibus relief as claimed by them. However, we are of the view that it would be possible to consider the claim of individual or Association/ Federation of a particular group. Inasmuch as we are confirming the relief granted in W.P. No.1484 of 1991. W.P. No.163 of 1981, W.P. No.18960 of 1992, no further order as required in this writ petition. 55. In the result, all the writ appeals are dismissed and W.P. No.1481 of 1981 is disposed of on the above observation. No costs. 56. In view of the disposal of the main appeals. Connected C.M.Ps., and W.M.Ps. are closed.