JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—The petitioner Chamera Hydroelectric Project Stage-I, aggrieved by the award made by learned Presiding Judge, H.P. Labour Court, Shimla dated April 5, 1999 in Reference No. 118 of 1996, has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside of the said award. Relevant facts : 2. Chamera Hydroelectric Project, the petitioner, is engaged in the Construction of Hydroelectric Project in the State of Himachal Pradesh Respondent No. 2. "Chamera Pariyojna Karamchari Sangh" (Regd.) Banikhet, hereinafter referred to as "Karamchari Sangh", is representative Body of the employees working in the Project. 3. The Draftsmen employed in the Project, as detailed in Annexure Pl-I, had a grievance that they were not released the pay scales to which they were entitled after the revision of the pay scales of Draftsmen by the Project. Their case was espoused by the "Karamchari Sangh", pursuant to which a reference was made by the Government of Himachal Pradesh under Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court was called upon to answer whether : "It was proper and legal to give initial appointment to 20 Draftsmen (list enclosed) in Gr. Ill pay scale of Rs. 260-430 by the Management of Chamera Hydro Electric Project, State-I, Dalhousie, Distt. Chamba, which is an instrumentality of National Hydro Electric Power Corporation, when in other Projects of National Hydro Electric Power Corporation such appointments of candidates having equal educational and technical qualifications have been given initial appointment as Draftsmen Grade II in the scale of Rs. 330-560. If illegal, then for what relief and damages above 20 Draftsmen are entitled to and whether they are eligible for the pay scale of Rs. 425-700 as per C.P.W.D. Arbitration Award as other Draftsmen Gr. II who have been eligible for above pay scale." 4. It is not in dispute that the Draftsmen concerned (Annexure Pl-I) were appointed on different dates in the year 1984-85. The Draftsmen at Sr. Nos. 1 to 10 were appointed from April 18, 1984 to May 7, 1984 and at Sr. Nos. 11 to 20, from September, 1984 to September 1985. It is not in dispute that the Draftsmen concerned (Annexure Pl-I) were appointed on different dates in the year 1984-85. The Draftsmen at Sr. Nos. 1 to 10 were appointed from April 18, 1984 to May 7, 1984 and at Sr. Nos. 11 to 20, from September, 1984 to September 1985. It appears an award was made by the Board of Arbitration in respect of the Draftsmen employed with the Central Public Works Department by which the pay-scales of Draftsmen were revised as under : Category Original Scale Revised scale on the basis of award Draftsmen Gd. I Rs. 425-700 Rs. 550-750 Draftsmen Gd. II Rs. 330-560 Rs. 425-700 Draftsmen Gd. Ill Rs. 260-430 Rs. 330-560 5. It is admitted position that this award was applicable to the Draftsmen in the establishment of Central Public Works Department alone. The Central Government on March 13, 1984 extending the benefit of this award to all the Government of India Departments/Offices stipulated that the benefit will be extended notionally with effect from May 30,1982 and actual benefit shall be available to the concerned Draftsmen with effect from November 1, 1983. The Management of the N.H.P.C. of which the petitioner is one of the units, extended the benefit of this award to the Draftsmen employed in the Corporation and its Projects by a letter dated April 21,1984. By another letter dated July 8, 1986, the Management raised maximum of the scale of Grade-I and Senior Draftsmen Grade-II as compared to the maximum of scale granted to the corresponding Draftsmen employed with the Central Public Works Department under the arbitration award. 6. It is noticed that the Draftsmen at Sr. Nos. 1 to 10 were recruited in the unrevised pay scale of rupees 260-430 whereas, the Draftsmen at Sr. Nos. 11 to 20 were recruited in the revised pay-scale of rupees 330-560. The Draftsmen at Sr. Nos. 1 to 10 were offered the post of Draftsmen Grade-Ill in the pay scale of rupees 260-430 which offer was accepted by them. However, they were released revised pay scale of 330-560 from the date of their appointment. The employees at Sr. Nos. 11 to 20 were recruited in the revised pay-scale of rupees 330-560. The Draftsmen at Sr. Nos. 1 to 10 were offered the post of Draftsmen Grade-Ill in the pay scale of rupees 260-430 which offer was accepted by them. However, they were released revised pay scale of 330-560 from the date of their appointment. The employees at Sr. Nos. 11 to 20 though were sponsored by the Employment Exchange in the pay scale of 260-430 but as by that time, the instructions of the Corporation extending the benefit of the arbitration award had been received, their initial appointment was made in the revised pay scale of rupees 330-560. 7. The grievance of the Draftsman is that the Draftsmen at Sr. Nos. 1 to 10 who ought to have been appointed in the revised pay scale of 330-560 (Grade-II) were appointed in the unrevised scale of 260-430 and as the pay scale of Draftsmen was revised from 330-560 to 425-800, therefore, they were entitled to the pay scale of 425-800. Similarly, the Draftsmen at Sr. Nos. 11 to 20 though were appointed in the scale of 330-560 but it should have been in the pay scale of 425-800, the revised pay-scale which was allowed to the other employees of the same category in some other Projects. 8. The case of the petitioner Corporation as spelled out in their reply to the reference and this petition is that in view of the award made by the Board of Arbitration in respect of the Draftsmen of Central Public Works Department, the scales of Draftsmen in the Corporation were also revised in accordance with award. However, by a letter dated July 8, 1986 the posts of Draftsmen were re-designated and maximum of scale of two categories of Draftsmen i.e. Sr. Draftsmen Grade-II and Draftsmen Grade-I were raised to Rs. 900 and Rs. 800 respectively Letter dated July 8, 1986 (Annexure P2/1) may be reproduced for convenience : "National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. (A Government of India Enterprise) 98-Hemkunt Tower Nehru Place. New Delhi. No. NH/PER/W-307 (Vol. II) Dated 8.7.86. Head of projects —Salal/Chamera/Baira Siul/Loktak/Rai Dulhasti/ Koel Karo /Tanakpur/Uri. Head of TCUs. —Malda/Udhampur/Moga/Silchar/ Bhubane. Head of Project Investigation Unit. —Dhauliganga/Goriganga State-I/II/II Dhaleshwari/Barah Pumped Storage Schemes. Head of P&A Deptts. In all projects/TCUs/Project Investigation Units. Head of F&A Deptts. Manager (Pers.) In all projects/Project Investigation Units. Corporate Office. New Delhi. No. NH/PER/W-307 (Vol. II) Dated 8.7.86. Head of projects —Salal/Chamera/Baira Siul/Loktak/Rai Dulhasti/ Koel Karo /Tanakpur/Uri. Head of TCUs. —Malda/Udhampur/Moga/Silchar/ Bhubane. Head of Project Investigation Unit. —Dhauliganga/Goriganga State-I/II/II Dhaleshwari/Barah Pumped Storage Schemes. Head of P&A Deptts. In all projects/TCUs/Project Investigation Units. Head of F&A Deptts. Manager (Pers.) In all projects/Project Investigation Units. Corporate Office. Sub : Revision of pay scales of Draftsmen Gd. III/II and in all Government of India offices on the basis of the Award of Board of Arbitration in the Case of Central Public Department. Ref. (i) Letter No. NH/PER (P)/8-l dated 21.4.1984. (ii) Circular No. NH/PER/W-307/1 dated 14.11.1985. (iii) Letter No. NH/PER(P) 8-303 dated 30.3.1985. Sir, Arising out of implementation of the decisions contained in the letters/ circular quoted above, certain points were raised some projects/ Units as also by the individual workmen from time to time. Accordingly, the following clarifications/decisions are hearby notified:— Points raised (i) Whether the Draftsman who did not possess the recruitment qualifications as notified vide letter No. NH/PER(P)/ 8-1 dated 21.4.1984 referred to above, could also be brought in the revised pay scales? Clarification/Decision No. It is reiterated that the D/M who did not fulfil the recruitment qualifications as prescribed in the case of Draftsmen in CPPWD and communicated vide letter No. NH/PER (P)/8-l dated 21.4.1984 can be placed in the revised pay scale. It is also clarified that only Draftsmen having Prescribed qualification Of Draftsmen at the time of their initial recruitment Were entitled to benefit Under circular dated 21.4.1984. (ii) What date should be taken into account for counting service for next promotion. The "Qualifying Service" for next promotion would be computed w.e.f. the date an incumbent has notionally brought in the revised scale of pay i.e. from 13.5.1982 or a subsequent date in the case of those who joined/were placed in the revised pay scales later, as the case may be. (iii) Whether the D/Men who have been brought in the revised pay scales will be governed for further promotion by the provisions of NHPC Promotion Policy and Rules. Yes, the D/Men who have been brought in the revised scale of pay in terms of letter dated 21.4.1984 above will governed for further promotion, by the provision of NHPC promotion policy and rules. (iv) The Draftsmen who Designation of the Concerned D/Men in the revised scale of pay. Yes, the D/Men who have been brought in the revised scale of pay in terms of letter dated 21.4.1984 above will governed for further promotion, by the provision of NHPC promotion policy and rules. (iv) The Draftsmen who Designation of the Concerned D/Men in the revised scale of pay. Fulfil the recruitment qualifications as Prescribed and have brought in the revised Scale of pay in terms of Decision communicated. In the letters referred to above will be redesignated w.e.f. 1.1.1985 as Under : Revised scale of Pay. Designation on placement in the Revised pay scale. Rs. 550-900. Sr. Draftsmen Gr-II. Rs. 425-800. Draftsman Gr I. Rs. 330-560. Draftsman Gr. II. However, service rendered in the grade of Rs. 550-750 and Rs. 425-700 will count towards eligibility period for Consideration for promotion to the next higher post w.e.f. 13.5.1982 or a subsequent date depending upon the placement in the revised grade, whichever is later. 2. The Draftsmen who were placed in the scale of Rs. 475-700 (425-15-500-EB-15-560-20-700) are placed in the pay scale of Rs. 435-800 (425-15-500-EB-15-560-20-700-EB-25-800) w.e.f 1.1.1985. Rate of increment in both the scales being identical no refixation of pay would be involved. Draftsmen Gr-I in the scale of Rs. 425-800 already in position as on 1.1.1985 shall rank senior to Draftsmen now being brought to Rs. 425-800 w.e.f. 1.1.1985. 2.1 It has been further been decided that henceforth ITI Diploma Certificate holders in Draftsmanship will be recruited as Tracers in the scale of pay of Rs. 260430. 3. This issues with the concurrence of Finance and approval of Competent Authority. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Opinder Chopra) Dy. Manager (Per)-Wages". (emphasis given) 9. As noticed earlier the benefit of revised pay-scales to the different categories of Draftsmen was extended with effect from May 13,1982 though actual benefits were made available from April 1, 1983. The re-designation of the concerned Draftsmen and the raise in the maximum of the revised pay scale was made effective from 1.1.1985 as under: Revised scale of pay. Designation on placement in the revised pay scales. Rs. 550-900. Sr. Draftsman Gr-II. Rs. 425-800. Draftsman Gr-I. Rs. 330-560. Draftsman Gr-II. 10. The service rendered earlier in the pay scale of 425-700, it was clarified, would be counted towards the eligibility for consideration for promotion to the next higher post. Designation on placement in the revised pay scales. Rs. 550-900. Sr. Draftsman Gr-II. Rs. 425-800. Draftsman Gr-I. Rs. 330-560. Draftsman Gr-II. 10. The service rendered earlier in the pay scale of 425-700, it was clarified, would be counted towards the eligibility for consideration for promotion to the next higher post. It was also clarified that the Draftsmen who were earlier placed in the pay-scale of 425-700 under the award would be placed in the pay-scale of 425-800 with effect from 1.1.1985 as the rate of increments in both the scales was identical, and, therefore, no re-fixation of pay was required. It was further clarified that the Draftsmen Grade-I who were in the pay scale of 425-800 would rank senior to the Draftsmen who were brought in the pay scale of 425-800 with effect from 1.1.1985. 11. It may thus be seen that the Draftsmen who were earlier in Grade-I, i.e. 425-700 were given new pay scale of 550-900 instead of 550-750. Similarly, Draftsmen Grade-II who were in the pay scale of 330-560 were given pay scale of 425-800 instead of 425-700 and the Draftsmen Grade-III who were in the pre-revised pay scale of 260-430 remained in the revised pay-scale of 330-560 and their designations were accordingly changed as noticed in the preceding para. 12. Learned Labour Court without going into the factual matrix of the revision of the pay scales and the dates from which it were revised concluded that the National Hydro Electric Power Corporation adopted the award of C.P.RW.D. on 21.4.1984 and all the Draftsmen from Sr. Nos. 1 to 20 were entitled to the pay-scale of Rs. 330-560 and thereafter 425-800 as has been allowed by the Project, i.e. N.H.P.C. Learned Labour Court allowed the petition holding that the Draftsmen at Sr. Nos. 1 to 20 were entitled to revised pay scale of Grade-Ill of rupees 330-560 from the date of their initial appointment and thereafter were to be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 425-800 as per C.P.RW.D. award. 13. To say the least, the award exhibits total non-application of mind by the Labour Court. It acted in an arbitrary manner without looking into the facts just to benefit these Draftsmen. 14. There is no dispute that the Draftsmen at Sr. Nos. 425-800 as per C.P.RW.D. award. 13. To say the least, the award exhibits total non-application of mind by the Labour Court. It acted in an arbitrary manner without looking into the facts just to benefit these Draftsmen. 14. There is no dispute that the Draftsmen at Sr. Nos. 1 to 20 having been recruited after the adoption of the award by the Project, were entitled to the pay scale of 330-560 from the date of their appointment and in fact were placed in revised scale from the date of their appointments. As noticed earlier, the maximum of pay scale were again revised in respect of the Draftsmen of Grade-I and Grade-II but Grade-III Draftsmen who were re-designed as Grade-II Draftsmen with effect from January 1, 1985 remained in the pay scale of 330-560. Their pay scales were not revised to 425-800 as concluded by the learned Labour Court. There was no reason to do so. By no stretch, it can be said that the Draftsmen, who raised the dispute, were entitled to pay scale of Rs. 425-800 on their recruitment. They indeed would be entitled to this scale on their promotion from Grade-II to Grade-I under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. 15. It is not the case of the petitioner nor can it be said by any logic that the Draftsmen Grade-III on their re-designation as Senior Draftsmen Grade-II would be as Draftsmen Grade-I. 16. It is clearly demonstrated that after having given the benefit of revised pay scales, the Corporation further amended the pay scales to give extra benefit to the Draftsmen at senior level, i.e., Senior Draftsmen Grade-II and Draftsmen Grade-I but so far Draftsmen Grade-II were concerned, their maximum of pay scale remained un changed in consonance with the arbitration award. Only the maximum of the pay scale of Senior Draftsmen Grade-II from Rs. 800 to 900 and Draftsmen Grade-I from Rs. 700 to 800 was revised. This benefit was extended to Grade-II Draftsmen who were earlier designed as Draftsmen Grade-III. 17. This apart, it needs no emphasis that fixation of pay and determination of parity is the function of the Executive as these matters involve not only the financial capacity of the Employer and the priority given to different types of posts under the policy of the Government but also other relevant factors. 17. This apart, it needs no emphasis that fixation of pay and determination of parity is the function of the Executive as these matters involve not only the financial capacity of the Employer and the priority given to different types of posts under the policy of the Government but also other relevant factors. It is well settled that the Courts should not interfere in the grant of pay-scales or pay-fixation and parity unless the decision of the concerned Authorities is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors (See : State of Haryana and another v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 72). The Apex Court in Secretary Finance Department v. West Bengal Registration Service Assn., 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 153, held that determination of pay-scales is the primary function of the Executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily courts will not take to themselves the task of job evaluation which must be left to expert bodies like Pay Commissions. The Court, however, hastened to add that this was not to say that the Court has no jurisdiction and aggrieved employees have no remedy if they are treated unjustly and arbitrarily by state action or inaction. The Court observed: ".....The Courts must realized that job evaluation is both a difficult and time-consuming task which even expert bodies having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found difficult to undertake sometimes on account of want of relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees." In Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, Their Lordships held: "It is to be kept in mind that the claim of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee through it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government. Fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge". In the present case, the decision of the Labour Court has no foundation. The award is against facts, result of conjectures and surmises therefore unsustainable. No other point was urged. In result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award of learned Labour Court is set-aside. Reference stands dismissed. No costs.