Order Per D.N. Patel, J.- The present appeal has been preferred against an order, passed by the learned Single Judge dated 8th October, 2010 in W.P.(L) No. 4912 of 2009. 2. The writ petition was preferred by the Management of Hyderabad Industries (respondent no. 1 in the present Letters Patent Appeal), whereby, the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi, in Reference No. 1 of 2006 dated 181h April, 2009 was challenged, especially to the effect that Demand No. 1 and Demand No. 13, which were allowed by the Tribunal, deserve to be quashed and set aside. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge and the matter was remanded to the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi, for afresh decision and, therefore, the workmen have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. We have Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant at length, who has submitted that the appeal is restricted only for Demand No.1, which is with regard to "equal pay for equal work" and the Industrial Tribunal has rightly allowed Demand No.1. The Management has two units; one at San at Nagar (Hyderabad) whereas the another is situated at Jasidih within the State of Jharkhand and, therefore, the workmen, who are performing the same work at Sanat Nagar Unit (Hyderabad) and who are working at Jasidih Unit (Jharkhand) must be paid equal pay, for their equal work. This aspect of the matter was correctly appreciated by the learned Industrial Tribunal, whereas, the learned single Judge for no justifiable reasons quashed the said finding and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a decision afresh and, therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that respondent no. 1 is having its unit at Sanat Nagar (Hyderabad) since 1956 and the pay of the workmen, working at Sanat Nagar Unit (Hyderabad) was fixed on the basis that it was a Metro City whereas the Unit at Jasidih (Jharkhand) came into existence after twenty three years i.e. in the year, 1979, which is a small place in the State of Jharkhand and is not even of a rank of town. It further appears from the facts of the case that the workmen at Jasidih Unit (Jharkhand) are getting more than the minimum wages and last pay was revised for the workmen, working at Jasidih Unit (Jharkhand) as per the Wages Agreement and Settlement dated 13th December, 2003 and moreover, during the period 2003-05 when the last settlement remained in operation, no revision in the pay took place in a Central or State Government nor in any neighbouring Industry, resorted to any revision in pay and, therefore, rightly it has been observed by the learned single Judge, while remanding the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, that the finding of the Tribunal was perverse. The Tribunal has wrongly held that the workmen at Jasidih Unit (Jharkhand) will get H.RA as per the 6th Pay Commission's Report, while deciding Demand No. 1 (i.e. a demand of "equal for equal work"). The 6th Pay Commission was not with regard to any Industry nor it has been made applicable to the Central Government Undertakings/Units like H.E.C. or Bokaro Steel Plant etc. and, therefore, such a direction giver by the Industrial Tribunal was rightly held the learned single Judge as perverse. 5. So far as Demand No. 13, which was for enhancement of age of the workmen from 58 years to 60 years, is concerned, it has been rightly observed by the learned single Judge that such age of retirement was as per the Standing Orders, certified by the appropriate Central Government and the Industrial Tribunal cannot suo motu amend the Standing Orders. The provision of Standing Order was annexed as Annexure 12 to the writ petition and was certified on 28th December, 1983 for Jasidih Unit (Jharkhand) and as per rule 28 of the said Standing Order, the age of superannuation is 58 years and even this is the age of retirement for the workmen of Sanat Nagar Unit (Hyderabad). 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed his argument only with respect Demand No. 1 i.e. "equal pay for equal work". No further argument has been canvassed for any other demand. 7. So far as Demand No. 1 is concerned, the learned single Judge at internal page 4-5 of the impugned judgment has observed as under: "After hearing both the parties and after going through the rival documents and finding, I find that as per the finding with regard to demand' no. 7. So far as Demand No. 1 is concerned, the learned single Judge at internal page 4-5 of the impugned judgment has observed as under: "After hearing both the parties and after going through the rival documents and finding, I find that as per the finding with regard to demand' no. 1 demanding payment of wages and emolument in par with the Sanatnagar Unit of Hyderabad Industries by the workmen of Jasidih is concerned, it is admitted case of the parties that they were getting their wages more than the minimum wage fixed as per the last pay settlement between the parties entered into on 13.12.2003 and during the pendency of these writ applications another wage revision has taken place as admitted by both parties and now they are getting their wages as per the present wage settlement. It is also admitted case that as per section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act, the settlement arrived at by the agreement of the employer and worker is binding on the parties and as such the settlement arrived at with regard to wages between the parties in the last settlement dated 13.12.2003 was binding on the parties and during the pendency of the aforesaid writs, it appears from the counter affidavit filed by the workmen that on 24.12.2009 another settlement has been entered into between the parties with regard to pay, DA, HRA and others and it has also been argued on behalf of workmen that in the counter affidavit at para 21 they have stated with regard to HRA, the dispute has been settled finally between workers and management and it has been settled by the settlement dated 16.7.2010 whereby and whereunder the workmen of the Jasidih Unit have been given the following benefits on the following terms and conditions:- 1. Workmen listed in the enclosed list shall get HRA at the rate of 10% of Basic+DA+VDA per month 2. The pre-revised amount of Basic Pay, DA and VDA shall be taken into account for the purpose of calculation of the HRA payable to each individual workmen. Workmen listed in the enclosed list shall get HRA at the rate of 10% of Basic+DA+VDA per month 2. The pre-revised amount of Basic Pay, DA and VDA shall be taken into account for the purpose of calculation of the HRA payable to each individual workmen. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal that HRA will be paid as per the 6th Pay Commission is perverse, since, 6th Pay Commission which is only with regard to the Central Government and State Government Employees and for the industries of Central and State Government is concerned, they have not applied even today and since the workmen had already settled the same by a tripartite settlement dated 16.7.2010 the finding with regard to HRA given in demand no. 1 is perverse and the same is set aside. The finding with regard to payment of wages as decided by the Tribunal in demand no. 1 that the salary to the employees at Jasidih Unit should get at par to their counterpart at Sanatnagar Unit, Hyderabad is also perverse since, the Tribunal has not considered that the two units are separated by 23 years and established at different .regions and has been held by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1958 SC page 578 in the case of Express Newspaper & Ors. (Supra), the Tribunal should have decided the same on the basis of considering the age of the industries and as also the regions and the profits made by the company from the two industry and should have considered the other points raised. In that view of the matter, the finding •with regard to the demand no. 1 is quashed." 8. It has been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Food Corporation of India Workers' Union vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors., as reported in 1990 Lab. I.C. 1910 that there can be different wage structure for different regions on the basis of applicability of industry-cum-region formula. 9. We see no error committed by the learned single Judge in remanding the matter to the Industrial Tribunal. I.C. 1910 that there can be different wage structure for different regions on the basis of applicability of industry-cum-region formula. 9. We see no error committed by the learned single Judge in remanding the matter to the Industrial Tribunal. Both the Units i.e. one situated at Sanat Nagar (Hyderabad) in a Metro City and the another at Jasidih (Jharkhand) have been wrongly compared with each other by the Industrial Tribunal and in view of the aforesaid observations and looking to the earlier settlement for wages between the parties, the learned single Judge has rightly quashed the order of the Industrial Tribunal for Demand No. 1 and it has been correctly remanded the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for its decision afresh. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, there is no substance in this appeal and, hence, the same is hereby dismissed.