Judgment :- The petitioners in these writ petitions are working in various Co-operative Sugar Mills in the State of Tamil Nadu. They are working either as Cane Development Assistants, Superintendents, Draughts Men, Pan In-charge, Store Keepers, Junior Engineers, Instrument Supervisors, Lab Chemists, Technical Assistants, Cane Office Managers, Foremen or Head Time Keepers. Admittedly, these posts fall under Supervisory "C" Category. As such, they cannot be transferred from one Co-operative Sugar Mill to another. The Government of Tamil Nadu also had felt the difficulties in transferring the people within the organizations from one Co-operative Sugar Mill to another Cooperative Sugar Mill. The Government, therefore, considered that it would be desirable to have a more mobile system, in which people could be transferred from one Cooperative Sugar Mill to another, which according to the Government would achieve efficiency in administration. Since the Co-operative Sugar Mills are functioning under the over all control of the Director of Sugar, the Government consulted this matter with him. The Director of Sugar requested the Government to issue necessary orders for creation of common cadre services for the posts above the level of supervisory "C" Grade in respect of employees working in Co-operative Sugar Mills including the Public Sector Sugar Mills and he further suggested that he may be authorized to frame necessary rules and regulations for appointments, transfers, initiation of disciplinary action, etc. On considering the said suggestions made by the Director of Sugar, the Government issued G.O.Ms.866 Industries Department, dated 25.07.1984, directing as follows:- "3. The Government have carefully examined the proposals of the Director of Sugar and they pass the following orders:- (a) The Second and Third level officers working in a/the Co-operative Sugar Mills including the Public Sector Sugar Mills may be transferred from one organization to another. (b) The Director of Sugar is authorized to frame necessary rules and regulations for appointment, transfer, etc. of the second and third level officers of the Co-operative Sugar Mills including the Public Sector Sugar Mills, and (c) For appointment and transfer of lower level staff in the Sugar Mills, the Director of Sugar is requested to take necessary action to form necessary rules in the case of Cooperative Spinning Mills. 4. of the second and third level officers of the Co-operative Sugar Mills including the Public Sector Sugar Mills, and (c) For appointment and transfer of lower level staff in the Sugar Mills, the Director of Sugar is requested to take necessary action to form necessary rules in the case of Cooperative Spinning Mills. 4. The Director of Sugar is requested to take immediate action with reference to orders in Para 3 above and to ensure that all the formalities are completed within 40 days and a report sent to the Government." 2. Based on the above Government Order, the Director of Sugar by his proceedings in Rc.No.23941/84/C1, dated 110. 1984, directed the Chief Executives of Co-operative Sugar Mills in the State of Tamil Nadu to frame regulations as suggested under the relevant Special Bye-Laws relating to the service conditions of the employees of the Cooperative Sugar Mills. It was further directed that the said regulations would deal with transfers in the case of employees of the Co-operative and Public Sector Sugar Mills in the cadre of Supervisory "C" Grade and other categories under second wage board recommendations other than the officers, who come under the common cadre services. On receiving the suggestions from the Sugar Mills and in pursuance of G.O.Ms.866, the Commissioner of Sugar by his proceedings in RC.No.25185/C3/89, dated 212. 1989 directed to include the following categories of employees also under the common cadre services viz., I. Cane Department:- (a) Cane Officers possessing B.Sc.,(Agri.)/M.Sc.,(Agri.)/ M.Sc., (Sugarcane)/M.Sc., (Agronomy) or equivalent with 2 years experience in Sugar Mills or 3 years experience in Government Service. (b) Cane Officers possessing B.Sc.,(Agri.)/M.Sc.,(Agri.)/ M.Sc., (Sugarcane)/M.Sc., (Agronomy) or equivalent but without experience and Graduates (who are already in service) possessing qualification such as B.Sc., (Botany), B.A. Degree and already working as Assistant Cane Officers. II. Engineering department:- (a) Shift Engineers/Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) (Mechanical Engineer, Graduates/Diploma in Mechanical Engineering) with specified experience. (b) Electrical Engineer (Graduate Engineers/Diploma in Electrical Engineering with experience as specified). (c) Civil Engineer (Graduate Engineers/diploma in Civil Engineering with specified experience). (d) Mechanical Engineer and Civil Supervisors (Diploma in Mechanical/Electrical/Civil Engineering) (it is proposed to adopt a more rational designation, nomenclature for Engineering posts). III. Manufacturing Department:- (a) Shift Chemist/Manufacturing Chemist And Lab Incharge B.E., (Chemical or B.Tech) or B.Sc., Degree plus ANSI/ADSI. (b) Manufacturing Chemist/Lab Incharge (B.Sc., Chemistry) but without Ansi/Adsi. (c) Lab Chemist with B.Sc., (Chemistry). (d) Mechanical Engineer and Civil Supervisors (Diploma in Mechanical/Electrical/Civil Engineering) (it is proposed to adopt a more rational designation, nomenclature for Engineering posts). III. Manufacturing Department:- (a) Shift Chemist/Manufacturing Chemist And Lab Incharge B.E., (Chemical or B.Tech) or B.Sc., Degree plus ANSI/ADSI. (b) Manufacturing Chemist/Lab Incharge (B.Sc., Chemistry) but without Ansi/Adsi. (c) Lab Chemist with B.Sc., (Chemistry). (d) Manufacturing Supervisors with Diploma in Sugar Technology. 3. It should be noticed that Lab Chemists with B.Sc., (Chemistry), Manufacturing Supervisors and Mechanical Supervisors would fall within "C" Grade. As per the said directions issued by the Commissioner of Sugar for these "C" Grade employees - Scale of Pay was also revised. The petitioners, who also fall within the Supervisory "C" category have not been given the benefit of common cadre service and consequentially their pay was not revised. As a result "C" Grade employees, who were brought under the common cadre services as per G.O.Ms.866, Industries Department 25.07.1984, were paid higher salary as per revision; whereas the petitioners, whose services were not brought under common cadre, were paid lesser salary. Their grievance is that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not followed and as a result, there is a gross violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners would further contend that one Mrs. R. Chandra, who was working as draughtswoman in Supervisory ‘C’ Category filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.15192 of 2000 before this Court seeking a direction to revise and refix her scale of pay on par with the other C Category Supervisors in the Engineering Department of Dharmapuri Co-operative Sugar Mills with effect from 01.01.1990, on which date the said Mill implemented common cadre services of C" Category employees. In the said writ petition, the contentions, which have been raised in the present writ petitions, were made. By order dated 22.04.2003, this court allowed the writ petition as prayed for. Challenging the same, the Special Officer of Dharmapuri Co-operative Sugar Mills preferred an appeal in W.A.No.4074 of 2004. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 12.07.2007 dismissed the writ petition and directed the Management to revise the pay scale of Mrs. R. Chandra on par with the other Supervisory C Category employees, who were brought under the common cadre services and the said judgment of the Division Bench has become final. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 12.07.2007 dismissed the writ petition and directed the Management to revise the pay scale of Mrs. R. Chandra on par with the other Supervisory C Category employees, who were brought under the common cadre services and the said judgment of the Division Bench has become final. In pursuance of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the writ appeal, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.123, dated 30.05.2008 thereby refixing the pay of Mrs. R. Chandra, draughtswoman on par with the scale of pay applicable to erstwhile common cadre employees of supervisory C Category with effect from 01.01.1995 instead of 01.01.1990. 4. At this juncture, it needs to be mentioned that even before the said order was passed by the Government, the common cadre services itself was abolished by the Government by Government Order (Standing) No.834, Industries (MI.C.2) Department, dated 012. 1997. In view of the abolition, there was a threat of refixing the scale of pay of the erstwhile common cadre employees, as they were drawing prior to the introduction of common cadre services. Therefore, the Government issued another Government Order (Standing) No.302, Industries (M.I.C.2) Department, dated 25.08.2000 giving protection to the scale of pay which the erstwhile common cadre employees were drawing in the common cadre services. Thus, enhanced pay paid to the supervisory C category employees, who were brought under the common cadre services continued to get the very same scale of pay even after the abolition of the common cadre services. 5. Some of the petitioners herein, who felt that they are also entitled for parity in pay as it was done in the case of Mrs. R. Chandra, made several representations to the Government. But, the Government did not consider the same. A Batch of 9 Writ Petitions were filed by some of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.17896 to 17904 of 2008 before this Court for appropriate relief. This Court by order dated 28.07.2008 directed the Commissioner of Sugar to dispose of the representations of the petitioners therein dated 011. 2007 in accordance with law. Similarly another batch of 4 writ petitions in W.P.No.18219 to 18222 of 2008 were filed wherein also similar directions were issued by this Court on 30.07.2008. It could be seen that yet another batch of writ petitions were filed by 9 persons in W.P.No.16781 to 16886 of 2008 wherein also, similar directions were issued. 2007 in accordance with law. Similarly another batch of 4 writ petitions in W.P.No.18219 to 18222 of 2008 were filed wherein also similar directions were issued by this Court on 30.07.2008. It could be seen that yet another batch of writ petitions were filed by 9 persons in W.P.No.16781 to 16886 of 2008 wherein also, similar directions were issued. 6. Based on the above orders, the Commissioner of Sugar passed individual orders on each representation made by the respective petitioners therein thereby declining to revise the pay scale of the supervisory C Grade employees, who were not brought under the common cadre services. It was stated in all such orders that the relief granted to Mrs. R. Chandra was confined only to her and the same cannot be made applicable to the other persons, who are similarly placed, like Mrs. R. Chandra. It was also mentioned in the orders, that the revised scale of pay could be awarded only to those C Grade Supervisory Staff, who were brought under the common cadre services and not for the persons like the petitioners in the writ petitions, who were not brought under the common cadre services. Aggrieved by such denial, the petitioners have come forward with these writ petitions seeking equal pay for equal work. 7. The following are the common grounds raised in all these writ petitions: (i) The act of the respondents in declining to revise the scale of pay of the petitioners on par with the supervisory C Grade employees, who were originally brought under the common cadre services, amounts to discrimination and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (ii) The petitioners, who are in the supervisory C Grade are paid far less, than the supervisory C Grade employees, who were brought under the common cadre services. The difference is equivalent to the basic of these Supervisory C Grade employees. Thus, the refusal to revise the scale of pay of the petitioners on par with others is highly arbitrary and unreasonable. The difference is equivalent to the basic of these Supervisory C Grade employees. Thus, the refusal to revise the scale of pay of the petitioners on par with others is highly arbitrary and unreasonable. (iii) When the Government directed all C Grade employees to be brought under the common cadre services as per G.O.Ms.866, it is beyond jurisdiction or the Sugar Mills to create a classification among the supervisory C Grade employees, so as to bring some of such supervisory C Grade employees into common cadre services in order to get the revised enhanced scale of pay, leaving behind the others like, the petitioners outside the common cadre services and to deprive them of the monetary benefits. (iv) The principles stated in Mrs. R. Chandras case cited supra, by the learned single Judge of this Court, which was confirmed by the Division Bench, squarely applies to the petitioners cases and it is not proper for the respondents to state that the principle stated therein is confined only to Mrs. R. Chandra and not for the petitioners, who are in no manner different in status from Mrs. R. Chandra. 8. A common counter has been filed by the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Sugar contending as follows:- (i) The writ petitions are not maintainable, since employment is a contract between employer Co-operative Sugar Mill and employees of the Sugar Mills, which could be questioned and challenged only in Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal. (ii) In G.O.Ms.866, the Government directed to create common cadre services only in respect of first, second and third level officers working in Co-operative Sugar Mills including Public Sector Sugar Mills. The petitioners did not fall within the first three level of officers. They did not even fall within the fourth level of Staff. Instead, they fall below the fourth level Staff. These staff, who fall below the fourth level have been categorized as supervisory A, B and C category employees, for whom Wage Board scale of pay was implemented as per the settlement reached under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (iii) In pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.866 Industries Department, dated 25.07.1984, only 12 posts were identified by the Commissioner of Sugar for enforcement of the said common cadre services in the Co-operative and Public Sector Sugar Mills, in which the posts of the petitioners were not included. (iii) In pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.866 Industries Department, dated 25.07.1984, only 12 posts were identified by the Commissioner of Sugar for enforcement of the said common cadre services in the Co-operative and Public Sector Sugar Mills, in which the posts of the petitioners were not included. Thus, the petitioners were never brought under the common cadre services. Subsequently, by issuance of G.O (Standing) No.834 Industries (MI.C.2) Department , dated 012. 1997 with a view to decentralize the control, the common cadre services was abolished, however, revision of pay earlier paid while they were in common cadre services was not disturbed. (iv) As per the Wage Board settlement, the staff were to retire at the age of 60 ; whereas as per the common cadre services, the retirement age was 58 years. Many of the employees, who were in the supervisory C Grade having enjoyed the Wage Board settlement and remained in services up to 60 years of their age, cannot be allowed to claim that their pay scale should be revised on par with employees covered under the common cadre services. If it is allowed, it will create anomaly and confusion. 9. An Union of employees known as "Tamil Nadu Anaithu Kooturavu Matrum Podhuturai Sarkarai Alaigalin Paniyalar Peravai raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.48 of 2008 before the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai for revision of scale of pay of the employees on par with the erstwhile common cadre employees. By award dated 21.02.2002, the Industrial Tribunal stated that either pay of the employees should be enhanced on par with the erstwhile common cadre employees or that the pay of the erstwhile common cadre employees should be reduced so as to maintain parity. Based on the same, a Committee was constituted and the pay of the erstwhile common cadre employees were reduced on par with the wage board employees. It is stated that challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.19361, 19411 of 2003, 2325 of 2004, 1837 of 2006, 16586 of 2000 and 32770 of 2003 were filed before this Court and the same are pending. 10. In conclusion it is stated in the counter affidavit that the prayer of the petitioners to revise and refix the scale of pay on par with the Supervisory C Category employees cannot be granted for the following reasons :- "1. 10. In conclusion it is stated in the counter affidavit that the prayer of the petitioners to revise and refix the scale of pay on par with the Supervisory C Category employees cannot be granted for the following reasons :- "1. Like Cement Wage Board, Cotton Wage Board, Sugar Wage Board, exists at All India level. This system should be respected. The request of the workers/employees to give Government Scale of pay and DA will dilute the entire system. It is pertinent to note that the Sugar Wage Board Scales are followed by all sugar mills in India including Private Sugar Mills. 2. The Industrial Tribunal considering the merits of the issue has adjudicated that the best way to arrive at points is to reduce the higher pay necessarily given to officer even after abolition of common cadre system. 3. The Industrial Tribunal award already became final. 4. The Total accumulated loss of 15 coop. and 2 Public Sector Sugar Mills as on date is Rs.1652.00 crores. Fixing Governments pay scale and DA to all workers will be financially unable for all the Sugar Mills. Further, this may create unrest amongst sugarcane growers as financial health of these Co-operative / Public institutions will be affected. 5. Consideration of request of workers/employees to give them Government Scale of Pay will have serious adverse impact at All India level. 6. Employment is a contract between employer (sugar mill) and employee (worker), which can be questioned and challenged only in Labour Court or Tribunal. Already, this matter was agitated before Labour Tribunal. Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge an employment contract. 7. Employer is the appropriate person to decide how many workers are needed and how much salary can be paid. It is an economic decision. If the Court may not be persuaded to fix salary of employees. 8. Labour Tribunal has made a very elaborate study on the salary system and already taken a considerable decision in rejecting the request of the worker to fix Government Pay Scales and DA and also fixing Sugar Wage Board Scales for 11 categories of Erstwhile Common Cadre Officers to meet the justice. 9. Total No. of Supervisory C Grade employees 275 and average arrears to be paid would amount to Rs.6.00 to Rs.7.00 lakhs per head. Thus resulting in expenditure of Rs.1856.25 lakhs. 10. 9. Total No. of Supervisory C Grade employees 275 and average arrears to be paid would amount to Rs.6.00 to Rs.7.00 lakhs per head. Thus resulting in expenditure of Rs.1856.25 lakhs. 10. There are 17 sugar mills incurring on cumulative loss upto 2007-2008 has been calculated to be Rs.1652.00 crores." 11. In the counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent Sugar Mills similar contentions as in the counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Sugar have been raised and therefore, it is not necessary to extract the contents of the counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent Sugar Mills. 12. I have heard Mr. T.V. Ramanujam, learned senior counsel who led a team of counsel appearing for the petitioners in the writ petitions except W.P.No.26216 to 26120 of 2008, Mr. G. Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.26216 to 26120 of 2008, Mrs. Malarvizhi Udhayakumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mrs. G. Thilakavathi, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Sugar Mills in all the writ petitions and I have also perused the records carefully. 13. The power of the Government to constitute the common cadre services in the interest of co-operative movement in respect of Co-operative Sugar Mills could be found in Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). According to the said provision, not withstanding anything contained in the Act or Bye-Laws made thereunder, and subject to the rules made by the Government, the Government may constitute common cadre services in respect of several posts enumerated in the provision and such other class or classes of posts as may be notified by the Government. From a close reading of the above provision, it could be understood that the Government has got choice of defining the class or classes of posts, for which common cadre could be constituted. If once, the Government notifies certain class or classes of posts constituted under common cadre services, the Co-operative Sugar Mills are bound by the same irrespective of any provision contrary to the same found either in the bye-laws or in the Act. Only in terms of the said power the Government considered to constitute common cadre services among employees working in the Co-operative Sugar Mills in the State of Tamil Nadu. Only in terms of the said power the Government considered to constitute common cadre services among employees working in the Co-operative Sugar Mills in the State of Tamil Nadu. Before constituting common cadre services, the Government, as could be seen in Government Order, consulted the matter with the Director of Sugar, who is in over all control of all the Co-operative Sugar Mills in the State. Though, the Director in principle agreed for the constitution of such common cadre services, he suggested that only those officers, who are working in the Co-operative Sugar Mills above the supervisory C category alone could be brought under the common cadre services. However, the Government, obviously, did not agree with the said suggestion. Instead, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.866 constituting common cadre services for all second and third level officers working in the Co-operative Sugar Mills including Public Sector Sugar Mils. However, the Government Order does not list-out the posts which fall under second and third level of officers in the Sugar Mills. Despite repeated queries made on the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent by this Court, they were not in a position to inform this Court as to what are all the posts, which were in the second and third level of officers posts prior to the constitution of the common cadre services. But, in the counter affidavit, it is stated that there were 3 classes of officers known as "first, Second and third level officers" and there were also "fourth level staff". It is further stated in the counter that the staff, who fell below the level staff were categorized into three as supervisory A, B and C category employees. Further, it is tacitly admitted in the counter that these petitioners fall in supervisory C category. It is the strenuous contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that C category employees, since did not fall within the second level and third level of officers, were not brought under the common cadre services as per the notification issued by the Government by way of Government Order. The fallacy of the said argument could easily be demonstrated. Admittedly, Mechanical Civil Supervisors, Lab Chemists with B.Sc., (Chemistry), Manufacturing Supervisor with diploma in Sugar Technology are all supervisory C category employees. Regarding this, there is no controversy at all. The fallacy of the said argument could easily be demonstrated. Admittedly, Mechanical Civil Supervisors, Lab Chemists with B.Sc., (Chemistry), Manufacturing Supervisor with diploma in Sugar Technology are all supervisory C category employees. Regarding this, there is no controversy at all. Indisputably, as per the proceedings of the Director of Sugar in Rc.23941/84/C1, dated 110. 1984, these three categories of employees were brought into the common cadre services. If the contention of the respondents that the supervisory C Category employees did not fall within either the second level or third level officers is to be accepted, then they have to explain as to how these three supervisory C category employees alone were brought under the common cadre services. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the supervisory C Category employees are not entitled to be brought under the common cadre services is only to be rejected. 14. As I have already extracted under Section 75 of the Act, it is the power of the Government to decide as to what are all the posts, which are to be brought under the common cadre services, in which the management of the sugar mills and the Director of Sugar have got no role to play. If once, the Government issues notification in exercise of its power conferred under Section 75 of the Act constituting common cadre services in respect of certain posts, it binds all the Co-operative Sugar Mills in the State of Tamil Nadu governed by the Act and absolutely , there is no discretion vested in the management of the Co-operative Sugar Mills to make further classifications only to bring some of the supervisory C category employees into the common cadre services and to leave the rest in their original posts. Under sub-section 2 of Section 75 of the Act, when any such common cadre services is constituted in respect of any post, all the employees holding such post on the date of constitution such common cadre service shall be deemed to have been absorbed in the common cadre service with effect on and from the date of constitution of such common cadre service. But, the second proviso to the said sub-section states that within such period as may be prescribed by notice in writing to the competent authority, an employee may intimate his option for not becoming a member of such common cadre services. But, the second proviso to the said sub-section states that within such period as may be prescribed by notice in writing to the competent authority, an employee may intimate his option for not becoming a member of such common cadre services. In the case on hand, after the issuance of the Government Order notifying all supervisory C category employees as common cadre employees, there was no time prescribed by the Government to enable the employees to exercise their option to express their inclination to come within the common cadre services. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners expressed their willingness to come within the common cadre services. From the spate of litigations, which these petitioners have been prosecuting before this court, it would go to show that they have all along been expressing their willingness to get the benefits of the common cadre services. It is, therefore, crystal clear that as per sub-section 2 of Section 75 of the Act, as soon as G.O.Ms.866 was issued, all the employees in the supervisory C category have automatically become the members of the common cadre services. Therefore, they are entitled for the benefits of the common cadre services. 15. The contention in the counter affidavit that only some of the posts in supervisory C category alone were brought under the common cadre services as per the proceedings of the Commissioner of Sugar and not all the employees in the supervisory C category, cannot be countenanced. As I have stated supra, there is no discretion or power vested with the management of the Sugar Mills to treat some of the classes of supervisory C category employees alone as employees of common cadre services. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the posts, which the petitioners have been holding were not brought under the common cadre services, is not tenable and the same is, therefore, liable to be rejected. 16. As I have already pointed out, the Lab Chemists, Manufacturing Supervisors, Mechanical Civil Supervisors, who were all in supervisory C category, were treated as employees under common cadre and their pay scale was revised. 16. As I have already pointed out, the Lab Chemists, Manufacturing Supervisors, Mechanical Civil Supervisors, who were all in supervisory C category, were treated as employees under common cadre and their pay scale was revised. If the contention of the respondents that supervisory C category employees are not eligible to come within the common cadre services and they do not form part of either second level or third level is to be accepted, then there is no acceptable explanation offered by the respondents as to why these 3 categories alone were treated as common cadre service employees. This only exposes the fallacy of the stand taken by the respondents. 17. Admittedly, some of the supervisory C category employees, who were brought under the common cadre services got the benefits of the revision of pay. When the common cadre services was abolished, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was a threat of action of again withdrawing the revision of pay scale so as to restore the original pay scale to the erstwhile common cadre employees thereby restoring the pay scale, which they were originally drawing before the introduction of the common cadre services. In order to give protection to such employees, proceedings have been issued so as to allow them to draw the very same scale of pay, which were given to them as per the revision made after the said posts were brought under the common cadre services. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has demonstrated before this Court that those erstwhile common cadre employees, who are in supervisory C category are getting more than double the pay of the petitioners, who are also in the same category. The petitioners herein, feeling aggrieved by the vast anomaly in the pay structure between them and the common cadre supervisory C category employees, started making representations. When they were all under consideration, the Government again abolished the common cadre services. Therefore, the fight for treating the petitioners as common cadre employees could not succeed. Thereafter, they started demanding pay parity. That has also not been given. Now, the only reason stated by the respondents is that since these petitioners, who are in supervisory C category were never brought under the common cadre services, they cannot expect parity in pay structure. Therefore, the fight for treating the petitioners as common cadre employees could not succeed. Thereafter, they started demanding pay parity. That has also not been given. Now, the only reason stated by the respondents is that since these petitioners, who are in supervisory C category were never brought under the common cadre services, they cannot expect parity in pay structure. Similar grounds were taken before this Court in W.P.No.15192 of 2000 by the Commissioner of Sugar and the Special Officer, Dharmapuri Co-operative Sugar Mills stating that Mrs. R. Chandra was a draughts-woman in supervisory C category and she was never brought under the common cadre services and therefore, she was not entitled for pay parity with the erstwhile common cadre supervisory C category employees, but, they were rejected by the learned Single Judge. Indisputably, appeal preferred against the same by the Special Officer, Dharmapuri Co-operative Sugar Mills in W.A.No.4074 of 2004 was also dismissed by judgment dated 12.07.2007 by a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench has extensively gone into all the grounds in the writ appeal and has negatived all such contentions. 18. In para 4 of the judgment, the Division Bench has narrated as follows:- "But, the posts in which the first respondent was working viz., Draughtsman was not included. It is the stand took by the appellant mill that though the first respondent/workman was working as supervisory C category employee, she was not attending the work of supervisory staff on par with other supervisory staff, who are controlling a minimum of 10 to 15 persons. But, she is attending the duty of an individual nature and she is not supervising any workman." 19. In para 5 of the judgment, the Division Bench has stated as follows:- "Though the appellant management admitted the fact that the post of draughtsman fall under the supervisory C category, the only reason stated by the appellant management for denying the claim of the first respondent/workman is that she is not attending the work of supervisory staff on par with other supervisory staff, who are controlling a minimum of 10 to 15 persons." 20. In para 6 of the judgment, the Division Bench has held as follows:- "Though the first respondent/workman was holding the post of draughtsman , which falls under the supervisory C Grade, the denial of pay scale on par with the other supervisors cannot be accepted." 21. In para 6 of the judgment, the Division Bench has held as follows:- "Though the first respondent/workman was holding the post of draughtsman , which falls under the supervisory C Grade, the denial of pay scale on par with the other supervisors cannot be accepted." 21. In para 7 of the judgment, the Division Bench has concluded as follows:- "The ground on which the workmans request was rejected is that she happens to be a lady and she cannot work in the shift services. It is not in dispute that the post of supervisory C Grade has been included in the common cadre services and it is also not in dispute that the appellant management revised the pay scale of supervisory C Grade. Though the first respondent/workman is holding the post of supervisory C Grade, the only reason given for denial of the benefits extended there is that she is not attending the supervisory duties but, attending only ordinary duties. We are unable to appreciate the reason given by the appellant management for denying the benefits to the first respondent/workman on par with the other categories falling under the common cadre services. When the equivalent posts of Mechanical, Electrical and Civil Supervisors are included in the common cadre services as per the Government Order and circulars issued by the Commissioner of Sugars referred to supra, the denial on the ground that she is a lady and her performance is not satisfactory is not a valid reason. Therefore, we agree with the order passed by the learned single Judge, which requires no interference." 22. The opinion expressed by the Division Bench squarely applies to all the supervisory C category employees like, the petitioners in the Sugar Mills. When some of the posts of supervisory C category have been brought under the common cadre services by the Sugar Mills and they were paid more salary as per the revision, it is beyond jurisdiction of the management of the sugar mills to refuse to treat the other supervisory C Grade employees alone as employees of common cadre services so as to give them parity in the matter of pay structure. At the risk of repetition, it should be mentioned that under sub-section 2 of Section 75 of the Act irrespective of absence of any order passed by the management of sugar mills, formally declaring the posts of supervisory C Grade employees as common cadre employees, automatically by operation of law all the supervisory C category employees have become employees of common cadre services. 23. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Mrs. R. Chandras case has become final and the same has also been implemented by the Government as per G.O.Ms.123 Industries Department (M.I.C.2) Department, dated 30.05.2008. When that is the position, I hardly find any reason as to why the other draughtsman, who are working like, Mrs. R. Chandra should alone be denied the revision of pay, as it was done in the case of the said Mrs. R. Chandra. In the orders passed on the representations made by some of the petitioners, a curious stand has been taken that the decision in Mrs. R. Chandras case is confined only to Mrs. R. Chandra and not for other supervisory C Grade employees . This contention cannot be accepted at all, as denial of benefits, which were extended to Mrs. R. Chandra would surely be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 24. In State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar and Others, 2008 (2) CLT 881, while dealing with the principle of equal pay for equal work, the Honble Supreme Court, on considering the similarity between the Presiding Officers of Industrial Tribunal and the District Judges held that except the source of recruitment, there is no other difference such as Educational and Professional qualifications, duties and functions etc. Therefore, there is no reason to treat the Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunal differently to deny the scale of pay payable to the District Judges. 25. In Union of India v. Dineshan K.K. (2008) 1 SCC 586 , again while dealing with the principle "equal pay for equal work", the Honble Supreme Court went to the extent of declaring that the principle of equal pay for equal work has assumed the status of fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, wherein also the Honble Supreme Court compared the Educational Qualification, nature of duties etc. and held that equal pay for equal work should be paid. 26. In Special Officer, Salem Co-op. and held that equal pay for equal work should be paid. 26. In Special Officer, Salem Co-op. Sugar Mills Matriculation Higher Secondary School v. All Teachers Front, 2008 (5) MLJ 302 , it has been held that the Matriculation School Teachers are entitled for equal pay like, the teachers who are working in the Government Schools. 27. There are innumerable cases from the Honble Supreme Court underlying the said principle. I do not propose to list-out such judgments as the same would only add to the length of this order. In the cases on hand, it is not at all contended that there is any reasonable bench-mark to classify the supervisory C Grade employees, who were originally brought under the common cadre services and the other employees like, the petitioner who are also in the supervisory C category. No where in the counter affidavits nor during the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that going by the identifiable difference from the nature of the services, qualifications, etc. such classification was made. When there is no such intelligible differentia pointed out to create the classification, it has to be certainly held that the classification as it is sought to be made by the management of sugar mills is only unconstitutional. As held by the Honble Supreme Court in several judgments, more particularly, in the judgments cited supra, the petitioners though were never treated by the management of the sugar mills as common cadre employees, since by operation of law, they automatically became common cadre employees and on the abolition of the same they have been restored to their original cadre of services, still in view of the pay protection given to the erstwhile common cadre employees, the petitioners are also entitled for such revision of pay and consequential protection also. 28. In the affidavit filed in W.P.No.25895 of 2008, it has been demonstrated that the petitioner P. Sivamani, Cane Development Assistant is drawing Rs.8710/- whereas one Mr. J. Pugazhendi, Electrical Supervisor, who is in the supervisory C Grade but, erstwhile common cadre employee, is drawing Rs.16,979/-Similarly, one Mr. M. Ganesan, Lab Chemist, erstwhile common cadre and supervisory C category employee, is drawing Rs.14,974/-There is no explanation regarding the vast pay difference, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. J. Pugazhendi, Electrical Supervisor, who is in the supervisory C Grade but, erstwhile common cadre employee, is drawing Rs.16,979/-Similarly, one Mr. M. Ganesan, Lab Chemist, erstwhile common cadre and supervisory C category employee, is drawing Rs.14,974/-There is no explanation regarding the vast pay difference, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. This is an example to demonstrate as to how some of the employees, who are in the supervisory C category have been discriminated in an arbitrary manner by the sugar mills. The principle of equal pay for equal work forms part of the fundamental rights of the employees. Therefore, it is high time for this Court to extend its long-arm to rescue these petitioners from the discrimination meted out to them by allowing all these writ petitions. 29. Now, the next question arises, that while ordering the respondents to revise the pay scale of the petitioners to bring parity in scale of pay with the erstwhile supervisory C category employees, whether such benefits could be given from the date of Government Order or not. 30. In the matter of Mrs. R. Chandra, the Government as per G.O.ms.123 has given the benefits not from 01.01.1990 but, from 01.01.1995 which is the date on which the orders were issued by the Commissioner of Sugar treating the draughtsman as employees of common cadre services, though, Government Order was issued on 01.01.1990. It is submitted by the Commissioner of Sugar that the financial condition of all these sugar mills are in a very bad shape. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that there are 17 sugar mills incurring a cumulative loss to the tune of Rs.1652 crores. Total number of supervisory C category employees is 275 and an average arrears to be paid would amount to Rs.6 to 7 lakhs per head. This would result in an additional total expenditure of Rs.1856.25 lakhs. Making this statement in para 24 of the counter affidavit, it is contended by the respondents that it will not be viable for the co-operative movement to burden the mills to pay so much of amount to its employees. This would result in an additional total expenditure of Rs.1856.25 lakhs. Making this statement in para 24 of the counter affidavit, it is contended by the respondents that it will not be viable for the co-operative movement to burden the mills to pay so much of amount to its employees. Having regard to all the above facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion, it would be in the interest of justice to direct the co-operative mills to give effect to the revision of pay structure and however to pay arrears at least from the month of September 2008 since the orders rejecting the claim of the petitioners were passed on 17.09.2008 by the Commissioner of Sugar. 31. At the same time, the contention of the respondents is that under the common cadre services, the retirement age of the employees was 60 years; whereas as per the Wage Board settlement, the retirement age is only 58 years and therefore, those who have enjoyed the benefit of being in service till the age of 60 cannot be allowed to get the benefit of common cadre service. I find force in this contention. 32. Having enjoyed the benefit of two years by continuing in services beyond 58 years, the employees cannot have any justification to retain the salary drawn during the said two years, if they want the benefits of common cadre pay revision. Therefore, while calculating the arrears in respect of retired employees at the age of 60 years, salary drawn by them for 2 years beyond 58 years should be given deduction. Similarly, if any of the petitioners is now working beyond 58 years of age should immediately be retired and as stated above, the salary drawn by him beyond 58 years of age should be given due deduction out of the arrears to be paid to him. However, the directions to be given in these writ petitions shall be confined only to the petitioners since they only have come forward seeking the benefits of common cadre services. The employees in supervisory C category, who have not claimed to be treated as common cadre employees, shall be treated to have exercised their option under Section 75 of the Act to remain in non-common cadre services and so they will not be entitled for the benefits of the common cadre services. 33. The employees in supervisory C category, who have not claimed to be treated as common cadre employees, shall be treated to have exercised their option under Section 75 of the Act to remain in non-common cadre services and so they will not be entitled for the benefits of the common cadre services. 33. Regarding the objection raised in respect of maintainability of the writ petition reference may be usefully made to the judgment of Larger Bench of this Court in K. Marappan v. The Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Namakkal Circle, Namakkal 636 001 and Others 2006 (4) CTC 689 wherein, this Court has held that though a Co-operative Society may not be a State or State Instrumentality in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution, still writ petition against the said society is maintainable, in certain circumstances like, violation of any statutory provision or violation of fundamental rights. The propositions evolved in Marappan’s case cited supra, are mainly by applying the various tests propounded in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid, ( 1981 (1) SCC 722 ). The Larger Bench of this Court in Marappans case held that the Co-operative society governed by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act does not fall under any one of the tests and therefore, such a society is neither a State or a State Instrumentality in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It should not be forgotten that what was under consideration before the Constitution Bench was as to whether a Co-operative Society governed by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act is either a State or a State Instrumentality under the Act. The Constitution Bench had no occasion to deal with a Co-operative Sugar Mill which enjoys monopoly status. 34. The test No.3 in Ajay Hasias case is in respect of the monopoly status enjoyed by a co-operative society wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held that in the event of the society enjoying monopoly status certainly it will fall within Article 12 of the Constitution of India so as to be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 35. 35. Indisputably, the Co-operative Sugar Mills in the State of Tamil Nadu are enjoying monopoly status in the matter in as much as the area of operation of each sugar mill is prescribed by the Commissioner of Sugar and the farmers, who own lands within the jurisdiction of a particular mill have to necessarily sell the sugarcane produced only to the said mill and they cannot carry to any other mill for the purpose of crushing or selling. When such monopoly status is enjoyed by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Sugar Mills in the State of Tamil Nadu, certainly, it has to be held that they fall within the ambit of third test in Ajay Hasias case. Therefore, these sugar mills are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court and they fall within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India as State Instrumentalities. Assuming that these co-operative sugar mills do not fall within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, still going by the nature of the relief sought for in these writ petitions, I have to hold that the writ petitions are maintainable since what is sought to be enforced is the right fundamentally guaranteed under Article 14 and 12 of the Constitution of India. 36. Subsequent to Marappans case a Full Bench of this Court in Ananda Sayanam, T.K. v. The Joint Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Vellore ( 2007(5) CTC 1 ) had an occasion to consider Marappan’s case and also to consider the question as to whether suspension of an employee of a Co-operative Bank would amount to invasion of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India so as to enforce the same under the writ jurisdiction. The Full Bench, after referring to Marappan’s case and also various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, ultimately in paragraph Nos.14 and 16 has held as follows:- 14. Every illegal order of suspension or termination will not ipso facto amount to violation of Article 21. The Full Bench, after referring to Marappan’s case and also various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, ultimately in paragraph Nos.14 and 16 has held as follows:- 14. Every illegal order of suspension or termination will not ipso facto amount to violation of Article 21. But there may be certain circumstances, as in a case of exclusion of an employee affected by HIV AIDS or an employee who has been rendered immobile by an accident or cases where the rights of huge number of employees are involved or where their very existence is jeopardized, where the employee may justifiably invoke Article 21 of the Constitution and seek protection by filing a writ petition. But every case of suspension or deprivation of wages for a period or termination will not entitle the employee of a Co-operative Society to move the Writ Court and contend that the right of protection under Article 21 has been violated. The employees have adequate statutory protection in law. 16. For every alleged or imagined invasion of his rights, an employee of a Co-operative Society cannot move the Writ Court on the ground that his rights under Article 21 have been infringed. The effect of the Supreme Court cases cited in Marappans case (cited supra) and the propositions set down in Marappans case (cited supra) cannot be set at naught merely by mentioning Article 21, even if the order is illegal. 37. In the case on hand, since large number of employees claim that they have been discriminated in the matter of scale of pay, as held by the Full Bench, since the rights of huge number of members are involved, the writ petition should be held to be maintainable. As held by the Honble Supreme Court in Dineshans case cited supra, since equal pay for equal work is a fundamental right, in the cases on hand, since such fundamental right is sought to be enforced, the writ petitions are maintainable and so, the contention of the respondents in this regard is rejected. 38. As held by the Honble Supreme Court in Dineshans case cited supra, since equal pay for equal work is a fundamental right, in the cases on hand, since such fundamental right is sought to be enforced, the writ petitions are maintainable and so, the contention of the respondents in this regard is rejected. 38. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed in the following terms:- (1) The respondents are directed to revise the pay scale of the petitioners on par with the scale of pay of the erstwhile supervisory C category employees, notionally fix the same from the date on which the other erstwhile supervisory C category employees were given the benefit of pay revision and however, pay the arrears only from the month of September 2008 as indicated above. (2) It is, however, made clear that the employees in supervisory C category, who have not claimed to be treated as common cadre employees, shall be treated to have exercised their option under Section 75 of the Act to remain in non-common cadre services and so they will not be entitled for the benefits of the common cadre services. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 of 2008 in W.P.Nos.25895, 25896, 25899 to 25905, 27947 to 27972, 28827 to 28852 of 2008, M.P.Nos.1 of 2009 in W.P.Nos.2270 to 2287, 9542 to 9569 and 17126 to 17166 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2008 in W.P.Nos.25897 & 25898 of 2008 are closed.