Order The petitioner, Management of Bokaro Steel Plant, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro, has preferred this writ petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the award dated 10.8.2001 (pronounced on 25.1.2002), passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, in Reference Case No. 12 of 1998, whereby and whereunder, a direction has been issued to the Management of B.S.L. to revise the pay scale and grade of Field Assistants, working in Raw Materials Department at par with the pay scale and grade of Field Assistants, working in the Civil Engineering and Town Administration Department of B.S.L., with retrospective effect from the date of their respective appointment as a Field Assistant in Raw Material Department. 2. The facts, in brief, are set out as under: The Field Assistants of Raw Materials Department were appointed in the year, 1976 and 1982-83 in L-3 Grade in the pay scale of Rs. 330-440/- and, accordingly, they joined the services of Bokaro Steel Ltd. and also availed promotion in their line. Thereafter, on 7.8.1997 Bokaro Steel Rastriya Mazdoor Sangh through its General Secretary, respondent no.1 herein, raised a demand on behalf of 59 Field Assistants,' working in the Raw Materials Department, inter alia, claiming parity in the grade and pay scale applicable to the field Assistants of the Civil Engineering Department with effect from 1.1.1976. The said demand was not acceded to, which led to reference of dispute by the then State of Bihar vide notifi0ation dated 1.7.1998 and the same was registered as Reference Case No. 12 of 1998. The following dispute was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City:- (i) Whether not to give L-4 post and pay scale of 56 Field Assistants of Raw Materials Department of Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, mentioned in Annexure "A" at par with the Field Assistants of other two departments justified? If not what any other relief the workmen is entitled to? 3. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro, vide its impugned Award dated 10th August, 2001 signed on 25.1.2002, directed as under:- "In the result the management of B.S.L. is hereby directed to revise the pay scale and grade of Field Asstts. working in Raw Materials Deptt. If not what any other relief the workmen is entitled to? 3. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro, vide its impugned Award dated 10th August, 2001 signed on 25.1.2002, directed as under:- "In the result the management of B.S.L. is hereby directed to revise the pay scale and grade of Field Asstts. working in Raw Materials Deptt. at par with the pay scale and grade of Field Asstts working in the Civil Engineering and Town Administration Deptt. of B.S.L. with retrospective effect from the date of their respective appointment as a Field Asstts. in Raw Materials Deptt. Accordingly this reference is disposed of and the award is being submitted to the Govt. which should be implemented within three months from the date of pronouncement of the Award." 4. The management of Bokaro Steel City has challenged the aforesaid Award in the present writ petition. The main argument raised on behalf of the Management is that some of the Field Assistants of Raw Materials Department were firstly appointed in the year 1976 in L-3 Grade in the pay scale of Rs. 330-440/- and upon selection they accepted the same and joined their service as Field Assistants, Raw Materials Department of Bokaro Steel City. Rest of the Field Assistants joined in the year 1982-1983. It has further been contended that no grievance or objection was raised either at the time of joining or thereafter. It has also been submitted that the Field Assistants in Raw Materials Department subsequently accepted their specific line of promotion without protestor demur. 5. According to the petitioner, the Field Assistants working in Civil Engineering Department were. appointed in L-4 Grade in the pay scale of Rs.355-487/and the Field Assistants of Town Administration Department were initially appointed in L-3 Grade in the pay scale of Rs.330440/- but later on in the year 1973 by a tripartite agreement their pay scale was rationalized and they also got L-4 Grade and pay scale of Rs. 355-487/-, which was given to the Field Assistants of Civil Engineering Department earlier. 6. The further contention raised by the petitioner is that the Field Assistants of Raw Materials Department were not even born in 1973 nor could they be a party in the tripartite agreement, instead their recruitment itself commenced for the first time in the year 1976. 355-487/-, which was given to the Field Assistants of Civil Engineering Department earlier. 6. The further contention raised by the petitioner is that the Field Assistants of Raw Materials Department were not even born in 1973 nor could they be a party in the tripartite agreement, instead their recruitment itself commenced for the first time in the year 1976. It has also been contended that the recruitment process, eligibility criteria and the nature of job performed by the Field Assistants in the Raw Materials Department and those Field Assistants working .in the Town Ad, ministration Department and Civil Engineering Department were different and thus the claim of revision and parity in the scale and grade was erroneous and unsustainable. It has further been contended that the direction of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro was erroneous and will unsettle the position and scale/grade of the Field Assistants of Raw Materials Department, that too after a period of over two decades. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1, taking specific stand that out of 56 Field Assistants of Raw Materials Department of Bokaro Steel Plant, 45 came in the service of B.S.L. in the year, 1976 whereas 5 in the year, 1982, 3 in the year, 1983 and 2 in the year, 1986 and they were initially appointed in L-3 Grade in the pay scale of Rs. 330-440/-. It is further contended that similar to the Field Assistants of Raw Materials Department, the posts of Field Assistants are also available in two other departments of B.S.L. i.e. Civil Engineering Department and Town Administration Department and the Field Assistants of Civil Engineering Department were initially appointed in L-4 Grade in the pay scale of RS.355-487/- and so far as the Field Assistants of Town Administration Department are concerned, they were initially appointed in L-3 Grade in the pay scale of Rs. 330-440/-. Subsequently, the Field Assistants of Town Administration agitated before the Management for granting them L -4 Grade alongwith the benefit of the pay scale of Rs.355-487/-, as was given to their counterparts in Civil Engineering Department and ultimately in the year, 1973 pursuant to a Tripartite Agreement, their pay scale was also rationalized and they were given L-4 Grade alongwith the pay scale of Rs.355-487/-. It is further contended that having come to know the aforesaid fact, the Field Assistants of Raw Materials Department also requested the Management to confer them L-4 Grade alongwith the pay scale of Rs.355-487/-, as was being paid to their counterparts in other two departments, namely, Civil Engineering Department and Town Administration Department. However, no heed having been paid to their request, respondent no.1 raised a demand on behalf of 59 Field Assistants of Raw Materials Department vide letter no.173 dated 7.8.1997, requesting therein, to provide them the same pay scale and grade as was being given to their counterparts on the principle of law of equality as well as considering the aforesaid Tripartite Agreement. The said request not having been acceded to, reference under Section 19(i)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was made for adjudication of the dispute between the Management and the workmen, represented by the Union. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 further submitted that in view of same designation, there should be a similar grade and pay scale, irrespective of the department. It is further contended that so far as educational qualifications and experience in regard to appointment of Field Assistants of Civil Engineering Department and Town Administration Department are concerned, it is Matriculate alongwith three years experience and so far as the Field Assistants of Raw Materials Department is concerned, it is an admitted fact that they are also Matriculate and they were made Field Assistants only after getting experience for more than three years on "N.M.A. basis" in the Mines and Quarries Department, later on known as A.M.C. of B.S.L. It is further submitted that there is no difference between the job of Field Assistant of Civil Engineering Department, Town Administration Department and those of Raw Materials Department. It is further stated that the aforesaid Tripartite Agreement having been made in the year, 1973 itself and the members of respondent no.1 having been appointed in the years, 1976, 1982, 1983 and 1986 respectively, it was incumbent upon the Management to have maintained uniform/ similar norms of appointment for the Field Assistants of all the three departments i.e. Civil Engineering Department, Town Administration Department and Raw Materials Department. 9. I have considered the pleadings and the rival contention raised on behalf of the parties. 9. I have considered the pleadings and the rival contention raised on behalf of the parties. In the instant case the admitted position remains that the respondents were appointed by way of selection through recruitment process with their open eyes and without any demur or protest they joined the post in L -3 grade in the pay scale of Rs. 330-440/- as Field Assistants in the Raw Materials Department in the year 1976 and thereafter, the demand was raised for the first time in the year 1997 and thus the reference was highly belated. 10. The petitioner-management had raised a specific issue with regard to delay and laches in raising the dispute and also pleaded that the same cannot be accepted in the eyes of Law. Unfortunately the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro in its impugned award has not even answered the specific contention of delay raised by the Management, more so when they had availed their promotion as well. It also appears that the required qualification for Field Assistants of Raw Materials Department was Matriculation with some experience whereas the required qualification for recruitment of Field Assistants in the other department was Matriculation with a minimum of three years experience. 11. It is further relevant to point out that the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro has heavily relied upon the tripartite agreement which took place in the year 1973 between the Management and Field Assistants of Town Administration Department for extending them L-4 Grade and the pay scale at par with Field Assistants of Civil Engineering Department but the said tripartite agreement took place much prior to the recruitment of the Field Assistants of Raw Materials Department. The respondents were thus neither party to the said tripartite agreement nor were born in the Organisation of Bokaro Steel City to claim parity under it, and thus the claim is on the face of it erroneous and unsustainable. 12. It is well settled that a person who joins a post without any demur or protest in a specific grade and pay scale so prescribed he cannot subsequently turn around and challenge the same. 12. It is well settled that a person who joins a post without any demur or protest in a specific grade and pay scale so prescribed he cannot subsequently turn around and challenge the same. Even otherwise the line of promotion and the nature of work for the Field Assistant of Raw Materials Department and that of Civil Engineering and Town Administration Department of Bokaro Steel City are different, There are dissimilarity in recruitment process, eligibility criteria and the nature of job. 13. The next contention raised and accepted by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court is with regard to equal pay scale and grade for equal nature of work since the employees were working in the same institution. The Law in this regard is well settled. 'Parity' means equality in all circumstances and thus the claimants have to be identically placed with regard to recruitment process, nature of work, the line of promotion and the qualification for claiming the equal grade and equal pay. 14. In the instant case the qualification is different, the recruitment process is different, the nature of work is different and the line of promotion is different, even though under the same Management. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in an identical case, as reported in (2006)9 SCC page321 (State of Haryana vs. Charanjit Singh), held as under:- "9 …….there are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work of different persons in different organizations or even in the same organisation. It has been held that this is a concept which requires, for its applicability, complete and wholesale identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scales and the other group of employees who have already earned such pay scales. It has been held that the problem about equal pay cannot be translated into a mathematical formula. It was further held as follows: (SCC p. 127, para 11) 11. A scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he holds no post. The respondent workers cannot be held to hold any posts to claim even any comparison with the regular and permanent staff for any or all purposes including a claim for equal pay and allowances. A scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he holds no post. The respondent workers cannot be held to hold any posts to claim even any comparison with the regular and permanent staff for any or all purposes including a claim for equal pay and allowances. To claim a relief on the basis of equality, it is for the claimants to substantiate a clearcut basis of equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination before becoming eligible to claim rights on a par with the other group vis-a-vis an alleged discrimination. No material was placed before the High Court as to the nature of the duties of either categories and it is not possible to hold that the principle of equal pay for equal work is an abstract one." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2007 (8) SCC page 279 titled as S.C. Chandra vs. State of Jharkhand at paragraph 37 held as under:- "Similarly, in State of Haryana vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. the principle of equal pay for equal work was considered in great detail. In paras 9 and 10 of the said judgment the Supreme Court observed that equation of posts and salary is a complex matter which should be left to an expert body. The courts must realize that the job is both a difficult and time consuming task which even ex-perts having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found it difficult to undertake. Fixation of pay and determination of parity is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. Granting of pay parity by the court may result in a cascading effect and reaction which can have adverse consequences vide Union of India vs. Pradip Kumar Dey." 15. In the instant case also the categories of Field Staff are different; the claimants are working in Raw Materials Department which is a different discipline having a different line of promotion whereas the Civil Engineering Department and Town Administration Department relate to the Town and Building having a different line of promotion and different nature of work. 16. The direction of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro to revise the pay scale and grade of the Field Assistants working in Raw Materials Department from the date of their respective appointment is on the face of it erroneous and unsustainable. 17. 16. The direction of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro to revise the pay scale and grade of the Field Assistants working in Raw Materials Department from the date of their respective appointment is on the face of it erroneous and unsustainable. 17. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the settled law, the impugned Award dated 10.8.2001 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro in Reference Case No. 12 of 1998, signed on 25.1.2002 is erroneous, illegal and unsustainable and is accordingly set aside without any order as to costs.