Judgment :- (1.) THIS Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, who appeared at the time of hearing to contest the writ petition. (2.) INDUSTRIAL Dispute arose between the petitioner (M/s. Garden Reach ship Builders and Engineers Limited) and its workmen represented by (1)GRSE Staff Association, (2) GRW Limited Clerks Union, (3) GRW Mazdoor and Staff Union, and the Government of West Bengal, Labour Department by its order dated 07. 03. 1983 referred to the said dispute to the 7th Industrial tribunal, West Bengal under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication. The issue that was framed in this regard was as follows:-"whether Card Writers/record Keepers of the Company are entitled to same pay, dearness allowance and other benefits as enjoyed by the clerks of the Company ?" (3.) THE petitioner filed its written statement and the GRSE Staff Association (hereinafter referred to as Staff Association), the GRW Mazdoor and Staff union (hereinafter referred to as Mazdoor and Staff Union) and the GRW limited Clerks Union (hereinafter referred to as Clerks Union) filed their respective written statements. The petitioner and the Staff Association adduced their respective evidence. The Mazdoor and Staff Union and the clerks Union relied upon the settlements arrived at by and between the petitioner and the said two Unions in 1983 but they did not adduce any evidence before the Learned Tribunal. The said Tribunal initially passed an award on 27.12.1988 and disposed of the reference case. (4.) THE Staff Association, which represents the Card Writers/record keepers being the employees of the petitioner, moved a writ petition before this Court and an Honble single Judge of this Court was pleased to set aside the said award and remand the matter back to the Learned Tribunal for rehearing. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner. The Honble Appellate court, on an application for stay moved by the petitioner, was pleased to dispose of the stay application directing the Learned Tribunal to proceed with the hearing of the reference case pursuant to the order of the Honble Writ court and to hear the reference case de novo on the basis of the evidence already on record and any other evidence that the parties may adduce in support of their respective cases. The Honkble Appellate Court was also pleased to direct that the Learned Tribunal shall be entitled to make and publish an award, but not further effect is to be given to the award by any of the parties before the Honble Court or by the State Government. The Honble appellate Court was further pleased to direct that the Learned Tribunal shall apply its mind independently. It further appears from the statements made in paragraph 24 of the writ petition that the Honble Appellate Court was further pleased to observe that though the Tribunal shall proceed in the matter de novo, any observation made by the Honble single Judge in His Lordships judgment shall not be treated as binding upon the Tribunal. It also appears from the said paragraph that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was ultimately dismissed. (5.) THE petitioner has challenged, in the present writ petition, the award dated 30. 05. 1992 passed by the said Tribunal wherein the said Tribunal has held that the Card Writers/record Keepers designated and promoted as clerks of the petitioner-company are entitled to same pay, same dearness allowance and other benefits as enjoyed by the clerks of the petitioner-company by virtue of the bipartite and tripartite settlements of 5th March, 1983 being clerks of the same clerical cadre of the petitioner-company w. e. f. 01. 01. 1982 and not from the respective dates of appointment of the Card Writers/record Keepers under the petitioner-company. (6.) IT appears that after the matter was remanded back to the Learned tribunal for de novo adjudication the petitioner and the staff association adduced further evidence at the time of hearing before the Learned Tribunal. The other two unions, as mentioned above, did not appear at the de novo hearing before the Learned Tribunal. It further appears that the Mazdoor and staff Union and the Clerks Union in their respective written statements had prayed for upholding the settlements of 5th March, 1983. The other two unions, as mentioned above, did not appear at the de novo hearing before the Learned Tribunal. It further appears that the Mazdoor and staff Union and the Clerks Union in their respective written statements had prayed for upholding the settlements of 5th March, 1983. (7.) THE case of the Staff Association, which is being represented by the respondent No. 3 in the present writ petition, before the Learned Tribunal was that the Card Writers/record Keepers of the Company were doing clerical nature of work since their appointments and they have been claiming same pay, same dearness allowance and other benefits as enjoyed by the clerks of the company who were drawing the Bengal Chambers of Commerce Ltd.-rate of pay and D. A. and other benefits; the Card Writers/record Keepers were members of the other two Unions namely the Clerks Union and the mazdoor and Staff Union. It was the specific case of the Card Writers/record keepers that they have been performing the clerical work as performed by other clerks of the petitioner-company; the said two Unions did not properly espouse the cause of the Card Writers/record Keepers who freed and/or detached, themselves from the membership of the said two Unions and formed staff Association in September, 1982; the Card Writers/record Keepers have been pressing their demands through the Staff Association and the matter was subsequently referred to the Labour Department of the Government of west Bengal on the dispute raised by the Staff Association but in the meantime the company entered into tripartite and bipartite settlements on 05. 03. 1983 with the other two Unions and without allowing Staff Association to participate in the said settlements; the Card Writers/record Keepers had to draw the benefits of the settlements under protest, and that the bipartite settlement is not binding upon the Card Writers/record Keepers. The further case of the staff association was that on 03. 09. 1982 the staff association raised a written dispute which was taken up by the Government of West Bengal, labour Department, to the effect that the Card Writers/record Keepers are entitled to the same pay and D. A. and other benefits enjoyed by the employees appointed as clerks of the petitioner-company from the respective dates of appointment of the Card Writers/record Keepers and that the petitioner-company cannot thrust upon such Card Writers/record Keepers the bipartite and tripartite settlements. (8.) THE petitioners case before the Learned Tribunal was that the dispute between the parties was already settled by the bipartite and tripartite settlements dated 05. 03. 1983 and after the implementation of the said settlements their remained no industrial dispute for adjudication and there remained no category of employees as Card Writers/ Record Keepers. According to the petitioner, the petitioner admitted the Card Writers/record keepers to the category of clerks of the petitioner in appropriate pay scale allowing appropriate dearness allowance and other benefits from 01. 01. 1982 in terms of tripartite and bipartite settlements of 5th March, 1983 arrived at between the petitioner and the aforesaid Mazdaor and Staff Union and Clerks union who had represented the interests of the clerks as well as the Card writers/record Keepers. According to the petitioner, the Card Writers/record keepers individually accepted the settlements and that the Card Writers/ record Keepers are bound by the settlements of 5th March, 1983. It was the petitioners case that the settlements of 5th March, 1983 were valid and that the said staff association has no legal competence to take up the cause of card Writers/record Keepers and that no award can be passed in favour of the said staff association. The learned Tribunal recorded the following facts as undisputed facts :- (1) The Card Writers/record Keepers were members of the said two unions (Clerks Union and Mazdoor and Staff Union) all through and until the formation of Staff Association in September, 1982. (2) The Record Keepers/card Writers through the said two Unions made representation before the petitioner for treating them as clerks of the petitioner on the basis of equal work, equal pay claiming same pay, dearness allowance and other benefits drawn by the employees directly appointed as clerks of the petitioner who were enjoying pay scale and dearness allowance in accordance with the Bengal Chambers of commerce and Industry-scheme (hereinafter referred to as "bengal chamber DA", from the date of appointment of such Card Writers/record Keepers. (3) The Card Writers/record Keepers freed themselves from the said two unions and formed the staff association in September, 1982. (4) The bipartite and tripartite settlements were effected by and between the petitioner and the said two unions on 5th March, 1983 without making the staff association a party to such settlements. (5) The tripartite settlement dated 05. 03. (3) The Card Writers/record Keepers freed themselves from the said two unions and formed the staff association in September, 1982. (4) The bipartite and tripartite settlements were effected by and between the petitioner and the said two unions on 5th March, 1983 without making the staff association a party to such settlements. (5) The tripartite settlement dated 05. 03. 1983 was arrived at in course of conciliation proceeding and so it is legally binding on the employees of the petitioner as well as the petitioner itself even though the staff association was not a party to it. (6) The bipartite settlement is not legally binding on the staff association but the said settlement is binding on the petitioner and the other two unions. (7) The tripartite settlement did not embrace anything regarding the Card writers/ Record Keepers but the bipartite settlement however related to the Card Writers/record Keepers only and by this settlement the petitioner company re-designated the Card Writers/record Keepers as clerks of the company w. e. f. 01. 01. 1982. (8) In the tripartite settlement new scale of pay for Grade III, II and I for the clerical cadre of the petitioner was fixed as per Clause 5. 1. 3 and under Clause 5. 1. 4 deamess allowance was settled. (9) Under Clause 5. 1. 5 of tripartite settlement the existing clerical graded staff getting the Bengal Chamber DA were invited to opt to the new scale as per Clause 5. 1. 3 of the settlement and the clerical graded staff drawing Bengal Chamber DA were allowed fitment at the rate of rs. 125/- inclusive of Rs. 56 ad-hoc amount allowed under Clause 5. 1. 1 thereof to them. (10) The effect of such settlement was given from 01. 01. 1982. (11) The petitioner brought the Card Writers/record Keepers into the common clerical cadre of the petitioner/ company in appropriate grades and scale of pay in Grade III, II and I mentioned in the bipartite settlement which is the same as a tripartite settlement and on that scale dearness allowance was allowed at CPI variable rate and the card Writers/record Keepers were given fitment benefit of Rs. 60/-in addition to basic and D. A. and some other benefits similar to the other clerical staff regarding leave, holiday, leave encashment, medical benefit, incentive, attendance etc. excepting sick leave which was fixed at 10 days in a year. 60/-in addition to basic and D. A. and some other benefits similar to the other clerical staff regarding leave, holiday, leave encashment, medical benefit, incentive, attendance etc. excepting sick leave which was fixed at 10 days in a year. (12) The Card Writers/record Keepers ultimately took the benefit of such scale of pay and D. A. at the instruction of the staff association under protest. (9.) THE Learned Tribunal came to the finding that certain document no doubt show that the Card Writers/record Keepers jobs were to some extent clerical in nature and sometimes some of such Card Writers/record Keepers also worked in lieu of some clerks of the petitioner-company for some period. The Tribunal also found that there is no clinching and reliable evidence on record to prove that the clerical works done by the Card Writers/record keepers were similar to the clerical works that were being done by the original clerks of the petitioner-company from the very beginning. The said Tribunal further found that it cannot be gainsaid that the works of the Card Writers/ record Keepers were the same kind of clerical job in their own sphere of duties. From a perusal of the impugned order it further appears that the learned tribunal found that the bipartite settlement is not legally binding on the staff association of the Card Writers/record Keepers as it was not a party to it and by that settlement the question of claim of the Card Writers/record keepers for being given to them same pay, D. A. and other benefits of the original clerks from their respective dates of appointment has not been settled though by that document the Card Writers/record Keepers were designated as clerks from 01. 01. 1982 and some financial and other benefits were given to them including new pay-scale of the clerical staff of the company as mentioned in the tripartite settlement. The learned Tribunal found that the claim of the Card Writers/record Keepers, particularly, with regard to their claim for being treated as clerks with effect from their respective dates of appointments has not been considered in any of the settlements. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal found that the industrial dispute raised by the staff association still exists. (10) IT appears that by the bipartite settlement the petitioner-company recognized the Card Writers/record Keepers as clerks with effect from 01. 01. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal found that the industrial dispute raised by the staff association still exists. (10) IT appears that by the bipartite settlement the petitioner-company recognized the Card Writers/record Keepers as clerks with effect from 01. 01. 1982 and the said Card Writers/record Keepers were given the grades of pay which have been given to the other clerks of the petitioner-company who were drawing the Bengal Chamber-DA in terms of the tripartite settlement. The said learned Tribunal found that the grades of pay shown under clause 5. 1. 3 of tripartite settlement are similar to the scale of pay as shown in clause 5. 1. 1 of the bipartite settlement. (11.) THE learned Tribunal found that the petitioner-company is obviously bound by the settlements arrived at, as mentioned above. The Card Writers/ record Keepers and clerks have been merged into the general clerical cadre of the petitioner-company with effect from 01. 01. 1982 getting the same scale of pay in their respective grade, which the Card Writers/record Keepers have received under protest. The Learned Tribunal further found that by bringing the Card Writers/record Keepers in the clerical cadre of the petitioner-company through the bipartite settlement, the petitioner-company has brought the said Card Writers/record Keepers within the ambit of the tripartite settlement which has to be read together with the bipartite settlement. (12.) THE learned Tribunal found that regarding the Dearness Allowance the original clerks of the company got Dearness Allowance of the Calcutta c. P. I. scale under clause 5. 1. 4 of clause 5 of the tripartite settlement which the Card Writers/record Keepers also got under clause 5. 1. 2 of the bipartite settlement. Under Clause 5. 1. 5 of tripartite settlement clerical graded staff under the Bengal Chamber-DA scheme have been given fitment benefit of rs. 125/- including ad hoc amount of Rs. 56/-over basic and D. A. from 01. 01. 1982 and that a portion of their D. A. was shown as Personal Dearness allowance. Under the bipartite settlement the Card Writers/record Keepers have also been given a fitment of Rs. 60/-in their existing Pay and D. A. but no amount of Rs. 125/-, as given to the clerical graded staff, nor any Personal d. A. have been given to the Card Writers/record Keepers. Under the bipartite settlement the Card Writers/record Keepers have also been given a fitment of Rs. 60/-in their existing Pay and D. A. but no amount of Rs. 125/-, as given to the clerical graded staff, nor any Personal d. A. have been given to the Card Writers/record Keepers. That by virtue of the tripartite and the bipartite settlements all the clerical graded staff including the Card Writers/record Keepers clerks were brought under the same Calcutta C. P. I. Dearness Allowance scheme with regard to the Dearness allowance. (13.) IN the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that it logically follows that at least from 01. 01. 982 the card Writers/record Keepers became entitled to the Bengal Chamber-DA on their existing Pay as on 01. 01. 1982 and thereafter the entire clerical graded staff of the petitioner-company switched over to the industrial DA scheme under the tripartite settlement getting the same kind of Dearness Allowance under the scheme. Thus, at least from 01. 01. 1982 the Card Writers/record keepers clerks being clerks of the same grade of the petitioner-company with other clerks became entitled to their respective amount of Bengal Chamber-DA as on 01. 01. 1982 i. e. to the difference of the amount drawn on the basis of Bengal Chamber-DA as drawn by the other clerks and the amount drawn by the Card Writers/record Keepers earlier in their previous industrial DA scheme. The learned Tribunal found that under the two settlements the Card writers/record Keepers became entitled to the said amount as their Personal da like that of the originally appointed clerks of the petitioner-company in their respective grade because the original clerks drawing the Bengal chamber-DA scale got their existing benefits of Bengal Chamber-DA as their personal Dearness Allowance under the new scheme of salary as mentioned in the tripartite settlement. There can be no difference in DA under the settlement dated 5th March, 1983 within the clerical cadre staff of the company from 01. 01. 1982. Thus the learned Tribunal found that the Card writers/record Keepers clerks being the clerks of the same cadre of the company are entitled to the same Dearness Allowance from 01. 01. 1982 with the original clerical staff of the company. 01. 1982. Thus the learned Tribunal found that the Card writers/record Keepers clerks being the clerks of the same cadre of the company are entitled to the same Dearness Allowance from 01. 01. 1982 with the original clerical staff of the company. The Learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that there cannot be any difference of fitment between the clerks of the same cadre and by virtue of the settlements dated 5th March, 1983 the Card Writers/record Keepers clerks are also entitled to the same amount of their respective new pay scale and that the Card Writers/record Keepers are on the same footing as that of the other clerks of the company on and from 01. 01. 1982. They are entitled to the same amount of fitment in their respective grades as given to the original clerks under the tripartite settlement. (14.) THE Learned Tribunal found that the settlement in question cannot be said to be unfair. The Learned Tribunal came to the finding that the Card writers/record Keepers clerks are not entitled to the same pay and other benefits as the original clerks of the company were getting in respect of the period prior to 01. 01. 1982. (15.) THE learned Tribunal held that the Card Writers/record Keepers designated and promoted as clerks of the petitioner-company are entitled to the same pay, same Dearness Allowance and other benefits as enjoyed by the clerks of the petitioner-company by virtue of the bipartite and tripartite settlements dated 05. 03. 1983 being clerks of the same clerical cadre of the company with effect from 01. 01. 1982 and not from the respective dates of appointment of the Card Writers/record Keepers under the petitioner-company. (16.) IT may be noted here that the Card Writers/record Keepers being represented by the said staff association which in turn is being represented by the respondent No. 3 have not expressed any grievance against the impugned award. In fact, the respondent No. 3 has supported the award and opposed the submissions and prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. (16.) IT may be noted here that the Card Writers/record Keepers being represented by the said staff association which in turn is being represented by the respondent No. 3 have not expressed any grievance against the impugned award. In fact, the respondent No. 3 has supported the award and opposed the submissions and prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. (17.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Card Writers/ record Keepers were initially members of the Clerks Union and the Mazdoor and Staff Union some with the Clerks Union and some with the Mazdoor and Staff Union; in September, 1982 the Staff Association was formed and the Card Writers/record Keepers came out of the above two Unions and came under the Staff Association excepting a few Card Writers/record Keepers who remained with the Mazdoor and Staff Union and/or Clerks Union. The said learned counsel submitted that since the Staff Association was not a party to the bipartite settlement, it cannot rely on the said settlement but the learned tribunal has done so. Having said that, the said learned counsel also submitted that there cannot be any dispute that even though the Staff association was not a party to the bipartite settlement, the tripartite settlement binds the members of the Staff Association also. The said learned counsel further submitted that the bipartite settlement cannot be binding on the company only excluding the Card Writers/record Keepers. Reading the impugned order as a whole it does not appear to this Court that the learned tribunal was of the view that the bipartite settlement is binding upon the company only and not on the Card Writers/record Keepers. The. learned tribunal had only recorded the fact that since the Staff Association was not a party to the bipartite settlement, the said settlement, taken in isolation, cannot be binding on the Staff Association but the tripartite settlement is definitely binding on the Staff Association. The learned Tribunal was of the view, and rightly so, that the bipartite and tripartite settlements are to be construed and read together as settlements covering the Card Writers/record keepers and other clerks of the company. The learned Tribunal was of the view, and rightly so, that the bipartite and tripartite settlements are to be construed and read together as settlements covering the Card Writers/record keepers and other clerks of the company. The said learned counsel further submitted that if the Bengal Chamber-DA is applied in respect of the Card writers/record Keepers then it would amount to taking a stand contrary to the two settlements which have made the C. P. I.-DA scheme applicable in respect of all concerned with effect from 01. 01. 1982. The point raised on behalf of the petitioner is that since the Card Writers/record Keepers were getting the C. P. I.-DA prior to 01. 01. 1982 and the clerks were getting the Bengal chamber-DA prior to 01. 01. 1982 and in view of the fact that in terms of the two settlements of 5th March, 1983 the Card Writers/record Keepers and the clerks were due to get the C. P. I-DA with effect from 01. 01. 1982, the clerks suffered a loss since the Bengal Chamber-DA was higher than the C. P. I.-DA, and to compensate such loss the Personal DA was introduced, in the settlements, for the clerks but the Card Writers/record Keepers did not suffer any such loss because they continued to get the C. P. I.-DA which they were getting earlier also. The said learned counsel submitted that if the Card writers/record Keepers are treated at par with the clerks the scale of pay may be allowed to be the same but the personal DA which was a pay protection to the clerks, cannot be allowed to the Card Writers. The learned counsel, in this regard, further challenged the finding of the learned Tribunal that the card Writers/record Keepers are also entitled to the same amount of fitment in their respective pay scale. (18.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner made another submission to the effect that since the learned Tribunal found that on perusal of the aforesaid settlements it cannot be said that the said settlements are unfair, the Learned tribunal should not have gone beyond the said settlements and also since the learned Tribunal did not find any element of fraud or mala fide in the said settlements, the learned Tribunal should have followed the said settlements dated 05. 03. 1983. 03. 1983. In this regard the said learned counsel relied upon a decision reported in 1953 (1) L. L. J. 174 (State of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy). The said learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the following line appearing at page 179 of the said reports which is quoted below:- "but the adjudication by the tribunal is only an alternative form of settlement of the disputes on a fair and just basis having regard to the prevailing conditions in the industry and is by no means analogous to what an arbitrator has to do in determining ordinary civil disputes according to the legal rights of the parties. " The other decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the one reported at AIR 1977 Supreme Court 322 (Herbertsons Ltd. v. The workmen of Herbertsons Ltd. and others). The said learned counsel referred to some portions of some of the paragraphs of the said reports as quoted below: "15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Since a recognised and registered union had entered into a voluntary settlement this Court thought that if the same were found to be just and fair that could be allowed to be binding on all the workers even if a very small number of workers were not members of the majority union. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " "18. 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. . . . . . . . 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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " "20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Having regard to the totality of the terms of the settlement we are unable to agree with the Tribunal that the terms are in any way unfair or unreasonable. " "21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 as the award is concerned, it cannot be said that the settlement as a whole is unfair and unjust. " "24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The settlement, therefore, cannot be judged on the touchstone of the principles which are laid down by this Court for adjudication. " "25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " "25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . This is the quintessence of settlement which Courts and Tribunals should endeavour to encourage. It is in that spirit the settlement has to be judged and not by the yardstick adopted in scrutinising an award in adjudication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (19.) THERE cannot be any dispute with regard to the legal proposition laid down in the aforesaid reported cases. The question is whether or not in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the said reported cases can be of any assistance to the petitioner. It is true that the learned Tribunal, in the instant case, has found that there is nothing to suggest that the aforesaid settlements dated 05. 03. 1983 were in any way unfair, and that there is no finding in the impugned award that there is any element of fraud and/or mala fide in the aforesaid settlements but the question is whether or not the Learned tribunal has gone beyond the aforesaid two settlements and granted some undue benefit to the Card Writers/record Keepers. The answer is : the tribunal has not in any way gone beyond the aforesaid two settlements. On the other hand, on perusal of the impugned award and the materials on record, it appears to this Court that the learned Tribunal has only given effect to the aforesaid two settlements. The said Tribunal has declined to accept the submissions made on behalf of the Card Writers/record Keepers designated as clerks of the petitioner-company that they are entitled to same pay, same Dearness Allowance and other benefits as enjoyed by the Clerks of the petitioner-company with effect from their respective dates of appointment as Card Writers/record Keepers. The said Tribunal has declined to accept the submissions made on behalf of the Card Writers/record Keepers designated as clerks of the petitioner-company that they are entitled to same pay, same Dearness Allowance and other benefits as enjoyed by the Clerks of the petitioner-company with effect from their respective dates of appointment as Card Writers/record Keepers. On perusal of the award as a whole it cannot be said that the Learned Tribunal deviated in any way from the bipartite and tripartite settlements, as mentioned above, nor has it granted any undue benefit to the erstwhile Card Writers/record Keepers in an making any departure from the bipartite and tripartite settlements. Thus, the aforesaid two reported cases cannot be of any help to the petitioner in the instant case. (20.) NOW, coming to the first point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears to this Court that such point is also not tenable. It is true that the clerks were getting the Bengal Chamber-DA prior to 01. 01. 1982 and the Card Writers/record Keepers were getting the C. P. I.-DA prior to 01. 01. 1982 but in terms of the two settlements, read and construed as a whole, the Card Writers/record Keepers have merged into the general clerical cadre of the petitioner-company from 01. 01. 1982 getting the same scale of pay in their respective grade and the said Card Writers/record Keepers had to be treated at par with the clerks of the petitioner-company with effect from 01. 01. 1982. Thus, the Card Writers/record Keepers being in the same grade with the clerks became entitled to their respective Bengal Chamber-DA at least on and from 01. 01. 1982. In such a situation the Card Writers/record keepers also became entitled to the personal Dearness Allowance like that of the clerks who were originally appointed as clerks under the petitioner-company because such clerks who were enjoying Bengal Chamber-DA got such benefits as their personal Dearness Allowance in terms of the aforesaid settlements. Keeping this in mind, the learned Tribunal considered and decided the question of fitment and came to the conclusion that the Card writers/record Keepers being on the same footing as that of the other clerks of the petitioner-company on and from 01. 01. 1982 are entitled to the same amount of fitment in their respective grades as given to the original clerks under the tripartite settlement. 01. 1982 are entitled to the same amount of fitment in their respective grades as given to the original clerks under the tripartite settlement. This Court does not find any error in the view taken by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the petitioner cannot succeed on such point also. (21.) IN the facts and circumstances of the instant case and in view of the discussions made above, this Court finds that there is no error in the impugned award and there is no merit in the instant writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, will be given to me learned Advocates for the respective parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. Later: after the aforesaid judgment is delivered, the petitioners Learned Advocate prays for stay of operation of the judgment for four weeks. Considering the submissions of the Learned Advocates appearing for the parties, there shall be stay of operation of the above judgment for a period of four weeks from this date. Writ petition dismissed.