By The Court—We have heard Shri B.N. Singh, counsel for the petitioners-appellant. Shri Manoj Misra appears for the respondent-bank.2. U.P. UCO Bank Workers’ Union filed a Writ Petition No. 37571 of 1994 for a direction to quash the order dated 5.11.1994 issued by the bank and the notice dated 9.10.1990 issued by the UCO Bank Divisional Office in respect of the settlement dated 17.6.1994, reducing the house allowance payable to the employees of the Chandpur Branch of the UCO Bank from 10% to 6 & half per cent and for discontinuing the City Compensatory Allowance. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 15.10.2008, giving rise to this Special Appeal.3. Brief facts, giving rise to this Special Appeal, are that in pursuance to Bipartite Settlement entered into between the bank as employer and the employees of the bank, the HRA at 10% and CCA at 4% was payable to the employees of the bank at Chandpur in District Varanasi. The bank initiated proceedings under Section 9 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 regarding reduction in the rate of HRA and withdrawal of payment of CCA. The Joint Secretary of the UCO Bank Staff Association, U.P. raised an industrial dispute on the subject before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Allahabad on 30.10.1990. After discussions and deliberations on the subject, the dispute was finally taken up in conciliation proceedings on 17.6.1994, and by a Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between the management and the UCO Bank Staff Association, it was decided that the management of the bank will continue to pay HRA and CCA to the employees of their branch at Chandpur (Varanasi) at the rate of 10% and 4% respectively provided the population of Chandpur is included in population of Varanasi Urban Agglomeration as per Census of 1971, 1981 and 1991. The short recital of the case and terms of the settlement dated 17.7.1994 are quoted as below:-“Short recital of the case:-The General Secretary UCO Bank ______U.P. (AIEXA) Allahabad raised an Industrial Dispute vide their letter No. Nil dated 30.10.1990 regarding notice issued by the Management under Section 9 (A) of the I.D. Act for discontinuation of the City Compensation Allowance at the rate of 4 percent and House Rent Allowance @ 10 percent and payment of allowance @ 6 and half percent and payment for CCA w.e.f. 01.11.1990 and requested for the intervention of A.L.C. (C) Allahabad. The Management as well as union were called for join discussion and the same were held on several dates between 19.11.1990 to 16.05.1994 and during conciliation proceeding after detail discussions and persuasion of A.L.C. (C) Allahabad both the parties agreed to resolve the dispute on the following terms of settlement.Terms of Settlements:- It is agreed by both the parties that:-1. Management shall continue to pay the House Rent Allowance and CCA to the employees of their Branch at Chandpur (Varanasi) @ 10% and 4% respectively provided the population of Chandpur is included in the population of Varanasi Urban Agglomeration as per Census of 1971, 1981 or 1991.2. Both the parties shall submit implementation report to the ALC (C) Allahabad with a copy therefore to RCC (1) Kanpur by 30.09.1994.”4. The Bank thereafter sought clarification from the Deputy Director, Census Operations, U.P. and were informed by letter dated 6.10.1994 of Shri R.K. Singh, Deputy Director, Census Operations, that according to the 1991 Census village Chandpur (Village Code 1229) is not included for the census of Varanasi City, Grade Varanasi Urban Agglomeration. The HRA was consequently reduced by the order and CCA was stopped. The settlement between the management of the bank, and the employees of the bank of their branch at Chandpur clearly stipulated that the management shall continue to pay the HRA and CCA, provided that the population of Chandpur is included in the population of Varanasi Urban Agglomeration as per Census of 1971, 1981 or 1991. The terms of the settlement provided reliance upon the inclusion of Chandpur branch within the population of Varanasi Urban Agglomeration with reference to Census 1971, 1981 or 1991.5. Learned Single Judge considered the argument raised by the petitioner, and found that the word ‘urban agglomeration’ has been mentioned with reference to the census operations. After the Competent Authority, Census Operations clarified that Chandpur is not included in Varansi Agglomeration, no further question was required to be considered.6. It is contended that no notice was given before reducing the HRA and discontinuing the CCA to meet the material collected by the Bank to come to a conclusion that Chandpur branch is not situate within Varanasi Urban Agglomeration as per Census of 1971, 1981 or 1991. It is contended that no notice was given before reducing the HRA and discontinuing the CCA to meet the material collected by the Bank to come to a conclusion that Chandpur branch is not situate within Varanasi Urban Agglomeration as per Census of 1971, 1981 or 1991. Shri B.N. Singh submits that learned Single Judge has erred in law in recording the findings that the documents, on which the reference has been placed by the bank, established that Chandpur is included within the Urban Agglomeration. He has relied upon the Census Report of 1981, in which according to him the village Chandpur is included within the Urban Agglomeration.7. The submission of Shri B.N. Singh, that the Deputy Director has wrongly informed the bank, is based upon the Census of 1981. He submits that Chandpur is included within the Varanasi Municipal Corporation and in any case in the Census report of Varansi at item No. 42 provides that ‘Varanasi Standard Urban Area’, includes Varanasi Municipal Corporation with Varanasi Railway Colony Tulshipur, Sheodaspur, Karaundi and Ashapur out growths. It also includes Varanasi Contonment, Kashi Vishwa Vidyalaya N.A. Maruadih, Railway settlement N.A. and Maruadih outgrowths, Ramnagar M.B. Phulwaria T.A. Mughalsarai M.B. Mughalsarai Railway Settlement N.A. Lohta C.T. Kotwa C.T. and 262 peripheral villages, which included 154 of Varanasi Tehsil and 108 of Chandauli Tehsil. Village Chandpur is included at serial No. 75 of 154 villages of Varanasi Tehsil.8. In order to appreciate the submissions made by Shri B.N. Singh, we have examined the census report of 1981. The village Chandpur is included in the villages of Varansi Tehsil and has been included in ‘Varanasi Standard Urban Area’.9. The term ‘Standard Urban Area’ used in the Census report is not the same term as it is provided in the settlement namely ‘urban agglomeration’. The reference to Urban Ceiling Act is not appropriate inasmuch as the parties had agreed in the settlement that the urban agglomeration will be in reference to the Census of 1971, 1981 and 1991.10. Shri B.N. Singh has then submitted that employees of the similarly situate branches within the municipal limits are getting HRA at 10% and CCA at 4%. He submits that the bank is causing discrimination with the petitioner.11. Shri B.N. Singh has then submitted that employees of the similarly situate branches within the municipal limits are getting HRA at 10% and CCA at 4%. He submits that the bank is causing discrimination with the petitioner.11. In the representation made by the petitioners to the bank they have clearly admitted that Chandpur branch is one KM far from municipal limits and tried to rely upon many other aspects such as branch is also a member of clearing house; the branch is dealing in foreign exchange business and declared “B” Category branch; there is no non-public business working day declared by the bank; branch is dealing in currency chest business and the branch is covered under the Block Kashi Vidyapith situated at Sheodaspur 2 & 1/2 KM far from the branch.12. The settlement between the management and the workmen is by way of a contract verified by the Deputy Labour Commissioner. In order to interpret the terms of the settlement the Court is required to look into only such material, which gave rise to the disputes and led to the settlement. The Court may also look into the correspondence between the parties, the reference to the terms used by other unions or any settlement which may have preceded between the parties.13. The house rent allowance and city compensatory allowance are given to set of the higher rates of rent and the cost of living in cities. In the present case, it is admitted to the petitioner that Chandpur is an industrial area and which is not included in municipal limits. It is entered as a village in the revenue records. The cost of living in village Chandpur, therefore, may not be equated with the cost of living in the city of Varanasi.14. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment of learned Single Judge. The Special Appeal is dismissed.(Special Appeal dismissed)_____________