S. R. NAYAK. J. ( 1 ) THE management of the Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Visakhapatnam has filed this writ appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 6. 9. 1999 in W. P. No. 12012 of 1992. The above writ petition was filed by the Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Employees Union which is a registered trade union, the sole respondent herein praying for the following relief. "petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the Circular No. PER/w$s/s17 (HPPC) dated 29. 4. 1992 issued by the Second Respondent i. e. Deputy General Manager (Personnel) Calcutta, as illegal and directing the respondents herein to pay the revised rates of construction allowance/project allowances as per the orders of the Supreme Court after calling for the records. " ( 2 ) THE background facts leading to the filing of the writ petition be noted briefly as under : The 1st respondent union is the registered employees union representing the workmen of the Hindustan Steel Works Constructions Limited. Admittedly, the said union represents all the workmen working in the appellant company unit at Visakhapatnam. The union filed the above writ petition aggrieved by the action of the appellant company in withdrawing the construction allowance that was being paid to the employees by issuing Circular No. PER /w$s/s17 (HPPC) dated 29. 4. 1992 of the Deputy General Manager of the appellant company, for and on behalf of the appellant company. The appellant company is a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The appellant company is engaged, inter alia in the business of construction of steel plant projects and various other projects of national importance and undertakes the works at various places in the country. The appellant company normally undertakes the works pursuant to the contracts awarded by various organizations. Having regard to the nature of the functions the company discharges, it becomes necessary for the appellant company to deploy its personnel at interior places also. The appellant company normally undertakes the works pursuant to the contracts awarded by various organizations. Having regard to the nature of the functions the company discharges, it becomes necessary for the appellant company to deploy its personnel at interior places also. In the instant case, the personnel of the appellant company in respect of whom the grievance was made by the respondent union were located at a distance of about 30 kilo meters from Visakhapatnam city. According to the union, the said place was not well developed and there are no educational facilities to their wards etc. Under those circumstances, the management of the appellant company itself thought it appropriate to pay an additional allowance called construction Allowance right from 1979 till April 1992 when the impugned circular was issued by the appellant company. It appears that there was a serious dispute between the parties pertaining to wage/pay revision of the employees of the public sector undertakings which ultimately culminated in a judgment of the Apex Court. ( 3 ) THE Apex Court in its judgment dated 14. 3. 1986 while dealing with several writ petitions filed by the employees of public sector undertakings directed appointment of a High Power Committee and accordingly a High Power Committee was appointed on 7. 4. 1986 and that submitted its report on 2. 11. 1988 and the Apex Court on the basis of the said Report issued further directions for implementation of the recommendations made by the Committee on 3. 5. 1990. ( 4 ) IT is the case of the respondent company that after disposal of the matter by the Supreme Court, there was a joint meeting held at New Delhi on 28. 1. 1992 between the management and representatives of the entire body of workmen of the respondent company wherein it was decided to leave the matter to the Board of Directors of the company with regard to payment of Project Allowance. Accordingly the Board of Directors in their meeting held on 7. 4. 1992 decided to withdraw the construction allowance at those places where all infrastructural facilities are available, one such being the project at Visakhapatnam. However, with a view to mitigate the hardship, the respondent company had decided to pay HRA @ 15% of the basic pay per month as against the prevailing 10%. Thereafter, the impugned order was issued. 4. 1992 decided to withdraw the construction allowance at those places where all infrastructural facilities are available, one such being the project at Visakhapatnam. However, with a view to mitigate the hardship, the respondent company had decided to pay HRA @ 15% of the basic pay per month as against the prevailing 10%. Thereafter, the impugned order was issued. ( 5 ) IT is the case of the petitioner-union that HRA @ 15% of the basic was paid even from 1986 onwards and therefore it is nothing to do with withdrawal of construction allowance. Further, no agreement was entered into between the union and the management for withdrawal of the allowance in the meeting held at New Delhi. On the other hand, when the CMD of the respondent company stated in the meeting that the construction allowance is not payable to the employees where facilities are available, the members of the Joint Forum including the petitioner union stated that reimbursement of the medical facilities and payment of construction allowance should be maintained. It is evident from the record of the High Power Committee that the Board of Directors should be the nominated authority to declare the project sites for the purpose of entitlement of the project allowance, fixing the time limit and its phased withdrawal on condition of making available of facilities. ( 6 ) THE impugned action of withdrawing the construction allowance was assailed mainly on the ground that the same was done by the management of the appellant company in utter violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act ). Opposing the writ petition, it was contended on behalf of the appellant company that the minutes dated 28. 1. 1992 should be recorded as a settlement within the meaning of that term as defined under the Act and if that is so, the obligation cast on the management to issue notice under Section 9-A of the Act could not be enforced against the management. That was the only substantive contention raised by the management of the appellant company. ( 7 ) THE learned Single Judge having elaborately dealt with the minutes of the meeting dated 28. 1. That was the only substantive contention raised by the management of the appellant company. ( 7 ) THE learned Single Judge having elaborately dealt with the minutes of the meeting dated 28. 1. 1992 has opined that the said document could not be characterised as a `settlement within the meaning of that term as defined in the Act so as to oust the obligation of the management flowing from the provisions of Section 9-A of the Act. In the light of that opinion, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned circular dated 29. 4. 1992. Hence this writ appeal by the management of the company. ( 8 ) WE have heard Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. Sri T. Veerabhadrayya contended that the learned Single Judge had erred seriously in law in applying the provisions of Section 9-A of the Act to the facts of this case. According to the learned senior counsel, Section 9-A of the Act is not at all applicable inasmuch as the authority to issue the impugned circular, in ultimate analysis, can be traceable to an authority granted by no other than the Apex Court itself in CMP No. 10864 of 1989 in W. P. No. 13044 of 1984 and batch dated 3. 5. 1990. ( 9 ) THE operative portion of the order passed by the Supreme Court in the above case reads as follows;"we heard the parties on the proposals contained in the affidavit and found that there was not much controversy over the proposals except in regard to the date of the implementation of the House Rent allowance. The employees insisted that the said allowance should be given from 1. 1. 1986 where as the Government contended that it can properly be implemented only w. e. f. January 1, 1989, since the Report was of 2nd November, 1988. We, however, direct as follows. i ). . . . ii ). . . . iii ). . . iv) The various recommendations made in the Report will be implemented with effect from the date s as follows. These dates are broadly in conformity with those specified in the report. We, however, direct as follows. i ). . . . ii ). . . . iii ). . . iv) The various recommendations made in the Report will be implemented with effect from the date s as follows. These dates are broadly in conformity with those specified in the report. 8) Other allowances and perquisites as per recommendations contained in Chapters12 and 13 of the report the quantum of benefits to be decided by the management of PSEs should be given effect to prospectively in terms of para III 7 Part III of the Report. ( 10 ) NO doubt in sub para 4, the Apex Court has in unmistakable language has stated that various recommendations in the report could be implemented with effect from the dates mentioned in the reports. Dealing with other allowances, which includes construction allowance also, the Supreme Court directed that the quantum of benefits to be decided by the management of Public Sector Enterprises should be given effect to prospectively in terms of para III. 7 part III of the report. The appellant has produced a copy of Chapter 12 of the Report, which reads as follows;specific PERQUISITES i. PROJECT/construction/field ALLOWANCE. Employees of PEs working at project sites located at out of the way places are in receipt of an allowance variously called as Project Allowances/construction Allowance/field Allowance. For convenience all the allowances are referred to as "project Allowance" in the following paragraphs. Project Allowance is primarily meant to compensate for lack of facilities like housing, schooling, marketing, medical facilities etc. , at the project sites. This allowance is withdrawn in a phased manner depending upon amenities being introduced at or near the project site. BPE O. M. No. 2 (142)/68bpe (GM dated 6th September, 1968 as amended from time to time lays down the conditions for the grnat of this allowance and also the procedure for sanctioning of this allowance. The allowance at present is not uniform in all the PEs. However, it is seen that generally PEs are following the rates as recommended by the III Pay Commission to Central Government employees. The managements/associations of the PEs have suggested enhancement of the existing rates. We have considered various suggestions made by the managements/associations and recommended that project allowance be granted to the PEs employees at the following rates:-