MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA ( 1 ) BY filing this writ petition, the petitioners are ventilating their grievances in respect of their pay scales contending, inter alia, that although the said pay scales have been revised with effect from 1/01/1978, the arrears have been paid to the petitioners only with effect from 1/07/1981. The further grievance of the petitioners is that although Additional dearness Allowance is to be paid to the petitioners, the same is subject to the condition that the element of Additional Dearness Allowance merged in the pay at 320 points of price index as shown in column 4 of the Annexure IV of the order of the respondents dated 22nd June, 982 would be excluded from the pay. In the writ petition the petitioners, therefore, have prayed that the arrears for the period from 1/01/1978 to 1/07/1981 due to revision of pay scales with effect from 1/01/1978 be paid to them and proper and appropriate dearness Allowance/additional Dearness Allowance should be paid to the employees of the delhi Vidyut Board as the present payment in respect of the same is not in order. In the petition, the petitioners have also claimed payment of the interim relief as announced by the government of India pending 4th Pay Commission. ( 2 ) PENDING recommendations of the 3rd Pay Commission, the Committee under the chairmanship of T. Shiva Shankaran was constituted by the Government of India vide notification dated 14/01/1971 to examine and report the demand of Delhi Electric supply Undertaking Engineers for grant of higher pay scales considering the nature of duties and higher risk and responsibilities as compared to their counter parts in the neighbouring states. The Committee recommended higher pay scales and on the basis of the aforesaid recommendations of the said Committee, the pay scales of the Delhi Electric Supply undertaking Engineers were revised with effect from 1/04/1972, which were later on extended to all other employees/officers with effect from 1/04/1971. The pay scales of the said employees of the respondent/delhi Electric Supply Undertaking were further revised with effect from 1/01/1978 by an order issued by the respondents on 22/06/1982. A copy of the said order is placed on record as enclosure - I . The said order was passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, exercising the powers of the corporation under Section 490 (2) (b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. A copy of the said order is placed on record as enclosure - I . The said order was passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, exercising the powers of the corporation under Section 490 (2) (b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. It is stated in the said order that in exercise of the aforesaid powers, the Commissioner has approved the scale of pay of the employees/officers to be revised with effect from 1/01/1978. So far Group c and d employees are concerned, the revision of pay scale was shown in annexure-l to the said document where as for the Engineer/technical officers, the same was shown in annexure-ll and for non-technical officers, it was shown in annexure-lll . It was further stated in the said office order that Dearness Allowance would be paid to the officers/employees at the rates specified by the Central Government from time to time subject to the condition that the element of Additional Dearness Allowance merged in the pay at 320 points of price index as shown in column 4 of he annexure-IV would be excluded from pay for the purpose of payment of D. A. /a. D. A. It was also stated that the actual benefit of revision of pay scales would be given from 1/07/1981 and no arrears for the period from 1/01/1978 to 30/06/1981 would be paid. !t was also stated that the option to elect the existing scale or 3rd Pay Commission scale or the revised scale would be exercised by the employees in the prescribed format within two months of the date of issue of the said office order. ( 3 ) IT is an admitted position that all the employees/officers of the Delhi Electric Supply undertaking exercised their option for grant of revised scale pursuant to which the aforesaid scale was granted to them along with all other benefits as stated in the said order dated 22/06/1982. After obtaining the said relief in terms of the said order, the present petition was filed in this Court in the month of October, 1985 seeking for the reliefs as stated at the beginning of this narration. ( 4 ) COUNSEL appearing for the respondents on the basis thereof took up a preliminary objection that this writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of delay and laches. ( 4 ) COUNSEL appearing for the respondents on the basis thereof took up a preliminary objection that this writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of delay and laches. According to the counsel for the respondents, there is a delay of more than three years in approaching this Court and that there is no Justified explanation given by the petitioners for the unusual delay and, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the said count alone. It was also submitted that the contentions raised in the present petition give rise to disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided in this writ petition and, therefore, on that count also, the writ petition is not maintainable in this Court. ( 5 ) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioners, however, submitted that there is no delay in approaching this Court forimmediately after the aforesaid order was published, the petitioners submitted representations and waited for its response and since no effective steps were taken by the respondents, this writ petition was filed immediately thereafter. It was also contended that the questions raised in this petition are all matters of documents which are placed on record and, therefore, the matter could be effectively decided on the basis of the said records. Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that all the employees of the respondents are governed at par, in respect of pay scales and all other allowances, like Dearness Allowance, Additional Dearness Allowance, HRA, CCA, etc. , with the Central government employees and the recommendations of the First and Second Pay Commissions are applicable on Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking employees and that recommendations of all the Pay Commissions are still applicable, except in the matter of pay scales. , with the Central government employees and the recommendations of the First and Second Pay Commissions are applicable on Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking employees and that recommendations of all the Pay Commissions are still applicable, except in the matter of pay scales. It was also stated by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that between the two pay scales, 3rd Pay commission pay scales and the pay scales revised by the respondents, the only difference is that in the 3rd Pay Commission pay scales Additional Dearness Allowance has been merged at 200 point price index, as on 1/01/1973 and in respect of respondents pay scale additional Dearness Allowance has been merged at 320 point price index as on 1/01/1978 and, therefore, there is no variation in between the two pay scales and as such the action of the respondents to exclude the merged element of Dearness Allowance/additional dearness Allowance from the Basic Pay as was made available to the Central Government employees has created anomalies/discrimination resulting in adverse effect on the salary of its employees. It was also submitted that the pay scales having been revised with effect from 1/01/1978, there is no justification to pay the arrears and giving effect to the said pay scale only with effect from 1/07/1981 and thereby depriving the petitioners from getting arrears in respect of the period from 1/01/1978 to 30/06/1981. It was also submitted that since the employees of the respondents were governed at par with the central Government employees in respect to pay scales and other allowances, the interim relief as announced by the Government of India pending Fourth Pay Commission could not have been denied to the petitioners. ( 6 ) IN support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners drew my attention to the contents of annexure-IV at page 39 and Table 1 of the Fitment and Pay fixation Tables appearing at page 115 of the paper book. annexure-IV inter alia indicates also the condition regarding payment of Dearness Allowance after the pay revision. ( 6 ) IN support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners drew my attention to the contents of annexure-IV at page 39 and Table 1 of the Fitment and Pay fixation Tables appearing at page 115 of the paper book. annexure-IV inter alia indicates also the condition regarding payment of Dearness Allowance after the pay revision. It is stated that the Dearness Allowance would be paid to the employees at the rates specified by the Central Government from time to time, subject to the condition that the element of additional Dearness Allowance merged in the pay at 320 point of price index as approximated and shown in column 4 of the table would be excluded from the pay for the purposes of further payment of Dearness Allowance to the employees. Comparing the contents of the said Annexures, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the scale of pay of an employee working in the existing scale of Rs. 120-1150 was revised to Rs. 410-580 but in his case the element of Dearness Allowance which was directed to be excluded from pay for further payment of Dearness Allowance was Rs. 155. 00 and, therefore, a person whose Basic Pay as on 1/01/1978 was at Rs. 120. 00, he would be losing an amount of Rs. 147. 60 when he is placed in the revised pay scale and, therefore, anomalies arise in the aforesaid manner. He submitted that the same is the case when the Basic Pay of an employee as on 1/01/1978 was upto Rs. 130. 00 in the existing scale. In support of his contention, the counsel also relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in The Bata Shoe Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. D. N. Ganguly and others , reported in AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1158 and also the decisions of the Supreme Court in Surinder Kumar Trehan Vs. Union of India and others; reported in air 1994 Supreme Court 1592, Employee s State Insurance Corpn. and others Vs. Gunvantri Umedrai Bhat and others; reported in 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Lands) 903 and Officers of F. C. /. Vs. F. C. I. and Ors. (C. W. P. No. 17059/1984 ). Relying on the said decisions, it was submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Basic Pay of an individual employee can be reduced only as a penalty under FR 29 and not otherwise. Vs. F. C. I. and Ors. (C. W. P. No. 17059/1984 ). Relying on the said decisions, it was submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Basic Pay of an individual employee can be reduced only as a penalty under FR 29 and not otherwise. It was also submitted that the expression pay is defined in FR 9 (21) (a) (i ). It was submitted that the impugned actions on the part of the respondents amounts to reduction of pay which is not permissible. ( 7 ) COUNSEL appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that all the aforesaid allegations are baseless. It was submitted by him that the Management (DESU/dvb) negotiated and signed a Memorandum of Settlement on 19/04/1982 with the recognised Union/ association for revision of wages on the pattern of Punjab State Electricity Board which was the demand at the relevant point of time of all the Unions of the Delhi Electric Supply undertaking. It was submitted that the settlement was arrived at after negotiation and the same is signed by the representatives of the recognised Union and the General Manager of the Delhi Vidyut Board. In the said settlement, it is specifically stated that there would be revision of pay scales with effect from 1/01/1978 and that arrears would be payable from 1/07/1981 only. In order to buttress his arguments, counsel drew my attention to the contents of the aforesaid Memorandum of Settlement which is placed on the records of the case. It was also submitted by him that since the aforesaid order dated 22/06/1982 was issued pursuant to and in terms of the aforesaid terms of Memorandum of Settlement, there cannot be any illegality or arbitrariness in the same. It was also submitted by him that options were given to all the employees/officers of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking and that all of them including the nine petitioners opted for availing of the revised pay scales in the year 1982 itself an, therefore, after a lapse of three years they cannot turn back and say that the same is not acceptable to them. He was also seeking to invoke the principles of waiver and estoppel against the petitioners. ( 8 ) IN the context of the aforesaid submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties, let me discuss the issues that arise for my consideration. He was also seeking to invoke the principles of waiver and estoppel against the petitioners. ( 8 ) IN the context of the aforesaid submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties, let me discuss the issues that arise for my consideration. ( 9 ) THE Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking/delhi Vidyut Board is an independent organisation having its own legal entity and the employees/officers are governed by its rules and regulations. They are not government employees. The employees ofDelhi Electric Supply undertaking/delhi Vidyut Board are also not covered automatically by the Rules, Regulations and recommendations by the various Committees including Pay Commission unless the same are adopted by Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking/delhi Vidyut Board separately and independently. The pay scales of the employees of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking/delhi vidyut Board are prescribed and governed by their own agreements and Committee reports. The aforesaid position is also corroborated by the very fact that the Shiv Shankar Commission report prescribed a pay scale which was accepted by the respondents and the petitioners also accepted the aforesaid position. There was also a demand from all the employees of the delhi Electric Supply Undertaking and their Unions for revising the wages of the employees/ officers on the patter of the Punjab State Electricity Board. ( 10 ) IN view of the aforesaid demand of the employees of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking/ delhi. Vidyut Board, the Government of India, Ministry of Energy constituted a Committee to go into the aforesaid specific demands. Subsequent thereto the recognised Unions and the management arrived at a settlement in respect of the aforesaid demands. A memorandum of settlement between the Management and the registered and recognised Unions was signed on 19. 4. 1982. In the said settlement it was agreed to that dearness allowance shall be paid to the employees at rates specified by the Central Government from time to time subject to conditions stipulated in Appendix II. In terms of and in accordance with the aforesaid settlement Pay Revision order was issued by the respondent on 22. 6. 4. 1982. In the said settlement it was agreed to that dearness allowance shall be paid to the employees at rates specified by the Central Government from time to time subject to conditions stipulated in Appendix II. In terms of and in accordance with the aforesaid settlement Pay Revision order was issued by the respondent on 22. 6. 1982 wherein the following was provided:- "dearness allowance shall be payable to Officers/employees at rates specified by the Central Government from time to time subject to the condition that the element of additional dearness allowance merged in the pay at 320 points of price index as shown in column 4 of the Annexure IV shall be excluded from the pry for purposes of payment of DA/ada. "even subsequent thereto the Government of India constituted a Committee with Shri K. P. Rao, as the Chairman and three members one of which was Shri P. K. Kumaramangalam, who was the Chairman of the Joint Action Committee of DESU employees. The following were the terms of reference:- (A) To examine the issue of payment of DA etc. , in terms of the pay revision order of 1982 and make an appropriate recommendation; (B) To examine and recommend appropriate pay scales for DESU employees; and (C) to make recommendations relating to the date of application of revised pay scales, staffing, etc. The Committee enquired into the same and consulted the employees of the Delhi Electric supply Undertaking. During the said discussions, it was conceded by the employees of the delhi Electric Supply Undertaking that there shall not be payment of D. A. on D. A. It also transpires from the contents of the report placed on record that various alternatives were considered by the Committee and it was finally decided that the method of calculation of DA/ ada was in order. Therefore, the Pay Revision Order dated 22. 6. 1982 was found to be in order. On the issue of DA the Committee held as follows: "on the first issue of regulation of DA with reference to the Pay Revision Order, the committee after examining all aspects came to the conclusion that the payment has been correctly regulated by DESU. The same applies to ad hoc DA also. 6. 1982 was found to be in order. On the issue of DA the Committee held as follows: "on the first issue of regulation of DA with reference to the Pay Revision Order, the committee after examining all aspects came to the conclusion that the payment has been correctly regulated by DESU. The same applies to ad hoc DA also. " ( 11 ) THEREFORE, after looking into the entire matter and due deliberations and all background materials, the Committee concluded that the aforesaid method of calculation of Dearness allowance/additional Dearness Allowance is in order. In the said document, reference is also made to the Memorandum of Settlement dated 19/04/1982, signed between the General manager, Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking and General Secretary of the Delhi Electric supply Undertaking Workers Union. ( 12 ) THE aforesaid narration makes it crystal clear that a settlement was arrived at between the Union and the Management in respect of the issue with regard to payment of DA/ada. In terms of the aforesaid settlement, the Government took a decision and an order was passed and even thereafter a Committee was constituted to go into all the aforesaid aspects as to whether or not the said decision is justified. After minute scrutiny of the same, it was found that the said decision is justified and should be adhered to. The matter having been examined at different stages by different authority/committee including the representatives of the employees/officers and the Management and they having found the decision valid, it cannot be said that there is any anomaly in the same. ( 13 ) IT is settled law that so far the matter with regard to pay revision and pay fixation are concerned, the same is the primary function of the execution and not of the judiciary. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, finance Department and others Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association and others; reported in 1993 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 153. In paragraph 12 thereof, the supreme Court said that the equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily courts would not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the Pay commissions, etc. In paragraph 12 thereof, the supreme Court said that the equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily courts would not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the Pay commissions, etc. It was also held equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and Court s interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice. Same principle should also apply to the issues raised in the present petition. ( 14 ) THE pettioners were given an option pursuant to the order dated 22/06/1982. All the petitioners had exercised the option to avail of the benefit of the said revised pay scales. The benefits under the said order as stated above were examined and scrutinised at different levels and thereafter it was found to be justified. The petitioners also did not approach this Court till the year 1985. The petitioner No. 1, herein, is an un-recognised and un-registered Union and only nine individual petitioners are before this Court. It thus appears that all the recognised Unions and the members thereof are satisfied with the aforesaid pay structure as also the benefits given therein. In the said order three options were given to all the employees to elect the existing scale of 3rd Pay Commission scale or the revised scale. The petitioners out of the aforesaid three options accepted and exercised their option in favour of the revised scale. In the said order, it was specifically mentioned that actual benefit of revision of scales would be given from 1/07/1981. The petitioners having accepted the aforesaid condition while exercising their options are bound by the same for they had exercised their option with open eyes and knew perfectly well as to what would be the effect thereof. The principle of waiver and estoppel shall also apply to the facts of the present case. The petitioners having accepted the aforesaid condition while exercising their options are bound by the same for they had exercised their option with open eyes and knew perfectly well as to what would be the effect thereof. The principle of waiver and estoppel shall also apply to the facts of the present case. ( 15 ) IN the settlement arrived at between the representatives of the recognised Union and the General Manger of the Management executed on 19/04/1982, it was specifically agreed that there would be revision of pay scales with effect from 1/01/1978 but the arrears would be payable only from 1/07/1981. The relevant Clause of the Memorandum of settlement is reproduced below:- (1) (i) Category c and d Employees of the Undertaking (including the teachers) will be given the scales of pay as appended (Appendix I) to this agreement with effect from 1. 1. 1978 only. Appropriate and corresponding revision of the pay scales of desu employees not specifically covered by this Agreement will also be carried out. However, arrears will be payable from 1. 7. 1981 only". ( 16 ) THE order of the respondents dated 22/06/1982 in fact gives effect to the aforesaid settlement dated 19/04/1982 and accordingly the claim of the petitioners for arrears earlier than 1/07/1981 is wholly misconceived. The claim now made is ex facie beyond the terms of settlement as incorporated in the Memorandum of Settlement and also beyond what is envisaged in the Report submitted by the High Powered Committee. ( 17 ) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioners submitted that the aforesaid settlement was not arrived at with the concurrence of the Conciliation Officer and, therefore, cannot be said to be binding on the parties. It is true that the said settlement was arrived at between the parties otherwise than in conciliation case, but the said settlement was arrived at after negotiation by a recognised Union with the employer and at that stage when a recognised Union negotiates with the employer, the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. In the case of herbertsons Ltd. Vs. The Workmen of Herbertsons Ltd. and others; reported in AIR 1977 supreme Court 322, the Supreme Court in paragraph 18 held thus:- "when a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. In the case of herbertsons Ltd. Vs. The Workmen of Herbertsons Ltd. and others; reported in AIR 1977 supreme Court 322, the Supreme Court in paragraph 18 held thus:- "when a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union, which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour. This would be the normal rule. We cannot altogether rule out exceptional cases where there may be allegations of mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other inducements. Nothing of that kind has been suggested against the President of the 3rd respondent in this case. That being the position, prima facie, this is a settlement in the course of collective bargaining and, therefore, is entitled to due weight and consideration. "in paragraph 21 thereof it was held by the Supreme Court that the settlement has to be considered in the light of the conditions that were in force at the time of the reference and that it would not be correct to judge the settlement merely in the light of the award which was pending appeal before the Court. It was further held that when negotiations take place which have to be encouraged, particularly between labour and employer in the interest of general peace and well-being, there is always given and take and that the settlement has to be taken as a package deal and when the labour has gained in the mater of wages and if there is some reduction in the matter of dearness allowance so far the award is concerned, it cannot be said that the settlement as a whole is unfair and unjust. ( 18 ) IN my considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. To the same effect is also the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The K. C. P. Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer and others, reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2334. In the said decision, the Supreme Court REFERRED TO to the decision in the Bate Shoes Co. Ltd. Vs. To the same effect is also the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The K. C. P. Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer and others, reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2334. In the said decision, the Supreme Court REFERRED TO to the decision in the Bate Shoes Co. Ltd. Vs. D. N. Ganguly, ( AIR 1961 SC 1158 ) relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner and also the decision in Herbertsons Ltd. (supra) and thereafter, the Supreme Court has held in paragraph 24 as follows:- "in connection with the justness and fairness of the settlement, it was observed that this has to be considered in the light of the conditions that were in force at the time of the reference. When, therefore, negotiations take place which have to be encouraged, particularly between labour and employer in the interest of industrial peace and well- being, there is always give and take. 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 the award is concerned, it cannot be said that the settlement as a whole is unfair and unjust. It was further observed that 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 itcompletely outweighs all the other advantages gained, the Court will be slow to hold a settlement as unfair and unjust. The settlement has to be accepted or rejected as a whole. " ( 19 ) IN the context of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, I may examine the decision of the respondents dated 22/06/1982. The same is the order issued by the commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi in exercise of the powers under Section 490 (2) (b) of the D. M. C. Act, 1957 in which the pay scales of the employees and Dearness allowance and Additional Dearness Allowance was announced. The benefit of the Dearness allowance as per the impugned order dated 22/06/1982 has been admittedly paid and there is no controversy in that regard. The issue of Dearness Allowance as announced by the said order is also in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 19/04/1982. The benefit of the Dearness allowance as per the impugned order dated 22/06/1982 has been admittedly paid and there is no controversy in that regard. The issue of Dearness Allowance as announced by the said order is also in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 19/04/1982. I also cannot accept the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that there was any reduction in pay or pay scale. Reliance on Fundamental Rules is misplaced. In the light of the aforesaid position and in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme court, it cannot be said that there is any illegality or arbitrariness in grant of Dearness allowance by the respondents in the aforesaid order dated 22/06/1982 which is in accordance with the terms of Memorandum of Settlement. The aforesaid aspect was also dealt with by the High Powered Committee and notified by the Ministry of Energy by memorandum dated 10th December, 1986. In the said Committee, the employees were also represented and on the issue of Dearness Allowance, the Committee held as follows:- "on the first issue of regulation of DA with reference to the pay revision order, the committee after examining all aspects came to the conclusion that the payment has been correctly regulated by DESU. The same applies to ad hoc DA also. "therefore, there is no infirmity in the decision of the respondents in that regard also. With the aforesaid conclusions, I am left with only the issue of claim with regard to interim relief. ( 20 ) IT should be an acceptable position that the recommendations in the Pay Commission report is not automatically applicable to the employees of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking/ delhi Vidyut Board as the said employees are not government employees. Their pay and scales are governed by their own agreement and Committee Reports and, therefore, the claim of interim relief on the basis of the Central Government decision to make interim arrangement await 4th Pay Commission Report is misconceived. It could not be disputed by the petitioners that the employees of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking/delhi Vidyut board were granted interim relief with effect from 1/04/1986 in terms of the settlement dated 7/05/1986 signed between the representatives of the Management and recognised union. The said amount granted in favour of the employees was also disbursed in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 7/05/1986. The said amount granted in favour of the employees was also disbursed in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 7/05/1986. In that view of the matter also, the claim of the petitioners for interim relief is unfounded. ( 21 ) IN the light of the aforesaid discussions, none of the claims raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition has any basis. The same are held to be not justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There is, therefore, no merit in this petition and the petition is dismissed but without any costs.