R. H. ZAIDI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. S. N. Verma. senior advocate for the petitioners, V. K. S. Chaudhary, senior advocate, who has appeared for the contesting respondents as well as the learned standing counsel. ( 2 ) IN all these petitions, common questions of law and fact are involved, they were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment, Writ Petition No. 11665 of 1998 shall be the leading case. ( 3 ) BY means of all these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners, mainly pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23. 12. 1997, contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition, passed by respondent No. 1, the presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. ( 4 ) THE relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that in exercise of the power under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (for short the Act), the Regional Rural banks were established. In exercise of the powers under Section 30 of the Act, the Staff Service regulations of the said Banks were framed. In exercise of power under Section 17 read with the provisions of the Regulations, referred to above, the salaries of the members of the staff of the bank used to be fixed, which were not equivalent to the salaries of the similarly situated employees of the national commercial banks. Some petitions were filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India claiming parity in emoluments by members of the staff of the bank and their unions. The Supreme Court disposed of the aforesaid petitions with the direction to refer the dispute to a National Industrial Tribunal headed by a retired Judge of the High Court by order dated 1. 9. 1987. The Central Government, thereafter, by order dated 26. 11. 1987 referred the dispute to the Tribunal headed by the Honble Mr. Justice Reddy (Retd.)of Andhra Pradesh High Court. After following the procedure prescribed under the law and after affording opportunity to the parties to produce evidence and hearing, the Tribunal gave its award dated 30. 4. 1990 accepting the claim of the employees and their unions. 11. 1987 referred the dispute to the Tribunal headed by the Honble Mr. Justice Reddy (Retd.)of Andhra Pradesh High Court. After following the procedure prescribed under the law and after affording opportunity to the parties to produce evidence and hearing, the Tribunal gave its award dated 30. 4. 1990 accepting the claim of the employees and their unions. But in view of the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, the matter regarding fixation of salaries was left for decision by the Central Government through its Equation Committee. The dispute thereafter came up for consideration before the Equation Committee which submitted its recommendation dated 16. 1. 1991 to the Central Government. Ultimately, the Finance Ministry informed vide letter dated 22. 1. 1991 that the Central Government has accepted the award of the National Industrial tribunal and issued directions for its implementation. The mode of implementation was prescribed by letter dated 22. 2. 1991, a copy of which is contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Some of the employees of Regional Rural Bank again raised dispute before the Calcutta high Court. The Calcutta High Court disposed of the writ petition by its judgment and order dated 5. 9. 1995. Thereafter, miscellaneous applications were filed before the Supreme Court in the above-noted writ petitions, which were disposed of by the order dated 12. 4. 1996 with certain directions, a copy of which is contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The Central government ultimately by order dated 22. 7. 1996 issued instructions for implementation of the award of National Central Tribunal and the National Equation Committee. The petitioner claims that it has complied with the directions issued by the Government. The contesting respondent nos. 2 and 3, however, again filed an application under Section 33c (2) of the Industrial disputes Act claiming implementation of the aforesaid award and payment of arrears of salaries/wages in terms of Sixth Bipartite Settlement as applicable to Nationalised Banks. The petitioner, on receipt of the notice, filed its reply, copies of the claim petition and written statement have been annexed as Annexures-7 and 8 to the writ petition. Parties produced evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their cases. ( 5 ) THE respondent No. 1, after considering the material on record allowed the application under section 33c (2) of the Act by its judgment and order dated 23. 12. Parties produced evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their cases. ( 5 ) THE respondent No. 1, after considering the material on record allowed the application under section 33c (2) of the Act by its judgment and order dated 23. 12. 1997 and directed the petitioner to make the payment of a sum of Rs. 66,137. 65 to the contesting respondents with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the unpaid amount in the leading case. Similar orders were passed in other cases. Hence, the present petition. ( 6 ) IN reply to the facts stated in the writ petition, a counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the contesting respondents controverting the facts stated in the writ petition. The petitioner also filed a rejoinder-affidavit reiterating and reasserting the facts stated in the writ petition. ( 7 ) AFTER the award was given by the respondent No. 1, several petitions were filed in various high Courts claiming parity in the pay scale. The High Courts have taken the view that the petitioners were entitled to parity in the pay scale as claimed by them. Challenging the validity of the said orders, passed by the High Courts, petitions were again filed in the Honble Supreme court. The Honble Supreme Court heard the matters and ultimately decided the same by its judgment and order dated 31. 1. 2001 in the case of South Malabar Gramin Bank v. Co-ordination committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees Union and South Malabar Gramin Bank officers Federation and Ors. , JT 2001 (2) SC 175. The relevant paragraph Nos. 15 to 18 of the said judgment read as under : "15. In view of the aforesaid conclusions of ours on the different contentions raised and in view of the fact that the Union of India in its interlocutory application had already indicated that the employees of the R. R. Bs. will be granted the new scales w. e. f. 1. 4. 2000 in the line with scales granted to Commercial Bank employees of equivalent level, we direct that the said determination be a determination under the second proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the R. R. B. Act and as such, the salary of the employees of the Regional Rural Bank w. e. f. 1. 4. 2000 be determined accordingly. 16. 4. 2000 be determined accordingly. 16. We also further direct that for maintaining the parity between the employees of the commercial Banks and the employees of the Regional Rural Banks, the said Union Government shall decide the question as to what would be the salary of the employees of the R. R. Bs. subsequent to the 6th Bipartite Settlement having been given effect to, in case of employees of the Commercial Banks and with effect from what date and the benefit flowing from such decision be given to the R. R. B. employees. The decision in question shall be taken within a period of six months from today. 17. Hereafter, as and when the pay structure of the employees of the Nationalised Commercial banks get revised on the basis of any Bipartite Settlement, the Union Government should take a decision so far as the employees of the Regional Rural Banks are concerned, within a reasonable time and bearing in mind the conclusions, we have already arrived at, so that the so called parity could be maintained. 18. The impugned judgment of the Kerala High Court, must be accordingly set aside. These appeals and transfer petition stand accordingly disposed of. " ( 8 ) TO give effect to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, noted above, the Central government has now issued two circulars dated 11. 4. 2001 and 25. 4. 2001, the copies of which have been filed along with the supplementary-affidavits by the parties, which form part of the record. The controversy involved in the present case, thus, stands finally decided and concluded by the judgment of the Apex Court, referred to above. The judgment and order passed by the apex Court has also been accepted by the Central Government and necessary directions for its enforcement have also been issued. Thereafter, there remains nothing to be decided on merits in the present case and other connected petitions. ( 9 ) IT is, however, noted that vide interim order dated 21. 4. 1998 petitioner was directed to deposit 1/4 amount awarded by the respondent No. 1 with the Assistant Labour Commissioner which is stated to have been deposited by the petitioner. The said amount shall be adjusted while deciding/calculating the salaries of the various employees of the banks. ( 9 ) IT is, however, noted that vide interim order dated 21. 4. 1998 petitioner was directed to deposit 1/4 amount awarded by the respondent No. 1 with the Assistant Labour Commissioner which is stated to have been deposited by the petitioner. The said amount shall be adjusted while deciding/calculating the salaries of the various employees of the banks. ( 10 ) IN view of what has been stated above, these petitions are decided in terms of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court and in terms of the two circulars, referred to above. ( 11 ) COPIES of this judgment may be placed on the records of all above noted connected petitions. Interim orders granted by this Court in all these cases are hereby discharged. No orders as to costs.