JUDGMENT ; G.B.Shah, J. We have heard learned senior counsel Mr. K.M. Patel with learned counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel for the appellant and learned counsel Mr. I.S. Supehia for the respondents. 2. In the above-referred Letters Patent Appeals, as common question of facts and disputes are involved, we have heard them together and adjudicated the same by way of this common judgment. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 28.12.2007 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.15584 of 2003 with Special Civil Application No.15945 of 2003 to Special Civil Application No.15967 of 2003, the appellant has preferred these Letters Patent Appeals on the grounds, more particularly, as narrated in the memo of appeal. 4. It is the case of the respondents/original petitioners that they were initially appointed as Assistants in Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Limited between 1979 to 1982. Thereafter, they were promoted to the post of Sr. Assistants vide order dated 13.8.1993 and since then, they are working in the same position. By promotion order dated 13.8.1993, as such 129 persons came to be promoted, but in fact, the said promotion was called as change of designation in the same pay scale with same duties and responsibilities. Order dated 13.8.1993 contains the names of the respondents/ original petitioners at various serial numbers, which have been specifically mentioned in the petition. In the said order, 12 employees have also figured at various serial numbers, whose names have also been narrated in the petition. The appellant/ original respondent by different orders in respect of the said 12 employees had decided to change their designation from Assistant to that of Sr. Assistant (now designated as Assistant Superintendent) with pay scale from Rs. 1200-2040 to Rs. 1640-2900 with effect from 1.9.1990. 5. After hearing the parties, learned Single Judge had passed order dated 28.12.2007. Para 16 of the said order, which is the operative part, reads as under:- "16. Assistant (now designated as Assistant Superintendent) with pay scale from Rs. 1200-2040 to Rs. 1640-2900 with effect from 1.9.1990. 5. After hearing the parties, learned Single Judge had passed order dated 28.12.2007. Para 16 of the said order, which is the operative part, reads as under:- "16. In view of the aforesaid discussions this court is inclined to issue the following directions to the corporation :- The Respondent Corporation is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners and other similarly situated for grant of Higher Pay Scale and up-gradation with appropriate effect as it granted the said benefit to those 14 employees after taking into considerations all the relevant aspects like seniority, and if other wise they were found to be eligible for such benefit. The Respondent Corporation would be at liberty to deny the benefit to those petitioners who could not have been other wise also promoted on account of some departmental proceedings or other handicaps. The Respondent Corporation shall record reasons and communicate the same to the petitioner if in his case the claim was not acceptable. The corporation shall undertake this exercise as soon as possible and accord the benefit with appropriate dates." 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India could not have been relied on by the respondents/ original petitioners in support of their claim, for higher pay scale. In 1980, because of lack of civic amenities and other infrastructural facilities, no one was willing to work at Panandhro and because of shortage of staff, the appellant Corporation was required to give charge of higher post to some of its employees. Moreover, the said employees who were granted higher pay scale by regularising their service on higher posts on which they were officiating and discharging their functions and that too by way of settlement, constituted different and distinct classes. The respondents/ original petitioners were not identically situated. He has also submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that higher pay scale was granted to Assistants working and officiating on higher posts in the project situated at remote place. The respondents/ original petitioners, therefore, were not entitled to parity in treatment as sought for by them. 7. The respondents/ original petitioners were not identically situated. He has also submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that higher pay scale was granted to Assistants working and officiating on higher posts in the project situated at remote place. The respondents/ original petitioners, therefore, were not entitled to parity in treatment as sought for by them. 7. Express condition of 2(P) settlement dated 9.2.2000, below column No.29 on internal page No.5 (page 76 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1206 of 2008), which is in vernacular language, translated into English, reads as under:- "It is a clear understanding between both the parties that it is accepted as full and final settlement in connection with the all demands of monthly wages workmen and the benefits, facilities, allowances etc. which are not mentioned therein, shall be discontinued with the implementation of this settlement. The implementation shall have to be made as per the instructions of the State Government issued from time to time. The Union waives all other demands except those which are mentioned in this settlement deed and which are not mentioned in this settlement and it does not make any pressure in this regard. Moreover, both the parties agree in connection with the matter that this settlement is full and final with regard to the demands raised by them for the employees. Now, any dispute does not arise between the parties in this regard. By this settlement, it is a clear understanding between both the parties that till this implementation is in force, the Union or any personal employee/employees shall not raise any demand so that the first party GMDC Ltd. should bear economical or administrative burden directly or indirectly." 8. Drawing our attention to the above-referred condition, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the claim made by the respondents/ original petitioners was barred by express settlement arrived at from time to time under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The above-referred settlement contains express condition that during the period of operation of settlement, i.e. from 1.1.2000 to 31.12.2009, employees will not raise any demand directly or indirectly involving financial burden on the Corporation. 9. The above-referred 2(P) settlement/agreement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was executed on 9.2.2000. It apepars that the above dispute was raised by the respondents/ original petitioners on or about 28.2.1996. 9. The above-referred 2(P) settlement/agreement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was executed on 9.2.2000. It apepars that the above dispute was raised by the respondents/ original petitioners on or about 28.2.1996. It is also not under dispute that earlier also, many settlement dated 16.9.1986, 5.7.1990, 8.7.1993 and 18.4.1997 had been entered into and executed like the above-referred settlement dated 9.2.2000. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents/ original petitioners has submitted that after the above-referred settlement dated 9.2.2000, the appellant Corporation had constituted an Anomaly Committee to look into the grievances of the respondents/ original petitioners and others. Accordingly, notices were issued to concerned parties to remain present before the Committee. General Manager by letter dated 9.8.2000 had informed the Secretary of the employees' Union of the appellant Corporation, inter alia, stating that the Anomaly Committee would take decision after hearing the respondents/ original petitioners and accordingly, notices dated 25.9.2000 (Annexure-'O') were issued. He has, then, submitted that as per the information of the respondents/ original petitioners, the Anomaly Committee had recommended that the petitioners should be given the same treatment as was given to the above-referred 12 persons. 11. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the present appellant, at page 48 to 66 in the Special Civil Applications, it is categorically stated and admitted that the Anomaly Committee was constituted by the Corporation to look into the grievances made by the petitioners in the representations. However, it is misleading to state that the Committee had recommended that the petitioners shall also be given the same pay scale as given to the 12 persons. The said Committee, in its report, had recommended that in order to remove anomaly, the Corporation may give either higher pay scale to senior employees from due date or alternatively, the higher pay scale given to those employees who were officiating on their posts may be withdrawn. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the recommendation of the Anomaly Committee cannot create any right in favour of the respondents/ original petitioners. 12. We do not find any force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. In our view, the report of the Anomaly Committee has got its finality and the efforts should be made for its implementation by the present appellant. 12. We do not find any force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. In our view, the report of the Anomaly Committee has got its finality and the efforts should be made for its implementation by the present appellant. It is important to note that after 2(P) settlement/ agreement dated 9.2.2000, at page 71 to 77, the Anomaly Committee had been constituted to look into the grievances of the respondents/ original petitioners and others. Though the report of the Anomaly Committee is not forthcoming on the record, but according to the finding, which has been referred above that the Committee in its report had recommended that in order to remove anomaly, the Corporation may either give higher pay scale to senior employees from due date or alternatively the higher pay scale given to those employees who were officiating on their posts may be withdrawn, it is for the appellant to decide how to implement the said recommendation of the Anomaly Committee but, it is clear that the anomaly of granting higher pay scale to the senior employees was established and, therefore, it needs to be rectified by the appellant. Considering the fact that in between the period of 2(P) settlement from 1.1.2000 to 31.12.2009, in which the express condition that the employees will not raise any demand directly or indirectly was incorporated, as referred above, and the Anomaly Committee, as referred above, was constituted by the appellant and it has given its report and therefore, in our view, indirectly, the appellant has waived that express condition incorporated in 2(P) settlement and thus, we are not in agreement with the above-referred submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. So far as special treatment given to the persons/employees who were working in Panandhro project situated at remote place is concerned, it is a fact that no willingness was sought for by the appellant, more particularly when some of the respondents/ original petitioners had also worked there, as mentioned in the petition. 13. The learned Single Judge has, at length, covered all the points relating to the delay, laches, acquiescence, estoppel as well as the earlier settlements and hostile discrimination and denial of equal treatment in pay scale and promotion in relevant paragraph Nos. 13. The learned Single Judge has, at length, covered all the points relating to the delay, laches, acquiescence, estoppel as well as the earlier settlements and hostile discrimination and denial of equal treatment in pay scale and promotion in relevant paragraph Nos. 10 to 15 of the judgment dated 28.12.2007 in Special Civil Application No.15584 of 2003 with Special Civil Application No.15945 of 2003 to Special Civil Application No.15967 of 2003, which are extracted below:- "10. This Court heard learned counsels of the parties. The fact remains to be noted in this case is that the Corporation has no specific Recruitment Rules for promotion. At the same time the fact remains to be noted is that present petitioners had never been afforded an opportunity of option for work at Panender or any other adverse place as it is sought to be made out by the respondent Corporation. As against this, the fact further remains to be noted that in the year 1993 it was only the designation, which came to be changed without change in the pay scale. For the first time in year 1995 in respect of some 12 persons whose names have been mentioned by petitioners in the petition change was effected which included change in the designation as well as in that of pay scale also. Now the Corporation has remained silent as to whether it was a change in designation because of promotion nor has it said specifically that there was an exercise of considering name of the petitioners and petitioners were not found eligible and persons in whose case the change were found more meritorious to petitioners. In any event change is again said to be a change only and said change could not have been made keeping in mind that the other employees would be adversely affected. 11. In fact the representations of the petitioners calling upon respondent to produce seniority list has also met with no result and therefore on the contrary petitioners' stand gets further substantiated on the ground of lack of seniority list. Shri. Patel has submitted that the action of the Corporation was not deliberate but after discussions with the Unions. Shri. Patel's this submission even if deserves to be considered, does not found to be correct in view of the language employed in the settlement. Shri. Patel has submitted that the action of the Corporation was not deliberate but after discussions with the Unions. Shri. Patel's this submission even if deserves to be considered, does not found to be correct in view of the language employed in the settlement. The question arise as to whether the language employed in the settlement could be said to be so clear as to deny the equal treatment to the petitioners. Would it be permissible to a State Agency or instrumentality to accord benefit of higher grade and pay scale to some of the employees ignoring others and seniors. The impugned action would amount to discriminating seniors squarely hit by the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. 12. The settlements are part & parcel of management process and they have been placed on record. In light of the settlement the controversy deserves to be examined in its true perspective. The settlement indicated that the issue with regard to change in designation was at large at all the time. However if that settlement is agreed upon then the question would arise as to what extend the petitioners were justified in claiming the parity with those 14 persons. These settlements go to show that there was serious demand for higher pay scale to the similarly situated employees. The settlement dated 13/9/1995 carries an item under the head of Officiating Allowance, which talks about the employees who have been working for, continues 2 years on higher post shall be given the designation. The settlement signed on 5/7/1990 talks about no obligation of the Corporation to automatic grant of up-gradation to employees who were officiating on the post and the issue of up-gradation policy was acted upon and to be governed by Government guidelines. 13. Shri Patel for the corporation submitted that in fact all the settlement arrived at between the parties were binding on all of them. The employees have submitted undertakings that for availing the benefit of facilities and advantages they have given up their earlier demands hence it would not be now open to these petitioners to ask for equal treatment qua those 14 employees. The employees have submitted undertakings that for availing the benefit of facilities and advantages they have given up their earlier demands hence it would not be now open to these petitioners to ask for equal treatment qua those 14 employees. Shri Suphehiya counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact no such undertaking or consent could be held against the petitioners as there could be no waiver of fundamental rights and the petitioners have fundamental rights to be treated equal by the State or its instrumentality. 14. The terms of the settlement do indicate that question of getting higher pay scale and change of designation was in fact subject matters of some of the settlement and while ultimately signing it the unions have in unequivocal terms given up their other demands and accepted the settlement as it was agreed upon. The Court is aware of the Hon'ble Supreme Courts various decisions in respect according directions to the State or its instrumentality in the matters of higher pay scales. 15. The Respondent Corporation has not pointed out any justifiable reason for not according the benefit of higher pay scale and upgradation which was granted to some of the employees except on the ground that the employees representatives have consciously while signing the settlement given up all the demands except those which were consciously agreed upon in the settlement. The Respondent Corporation has not pointed out any cogent reasons for giving benefit of up-gradation and higher pay scale to those 14 employees while many seniors and similarly situated employees were left high and dry. In absence of any justifiable reasons and grounds for perpetrating discrimination qua employees like petitioners the Corporation is under obligation to give positive consideration to the claims of the petitioners. This Court is of the view that benefit of upgradation as well as that of higher pay scale given to those 14 employees ignoring the claim of other eligible employees like petitioner was violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India The petitioner were entitled to the equal treatment." 14. From the discussion made hereinabove, we do not find any merit or substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. From the discussion made hereinabove, we do not find any merit or substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. We have carefully perused the order dated 28.12.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.15584 of 2003 with Special Civil Application No.15945 of 2003 to Special Civil Application No.15967 of 2003 but we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the same and we find ourselves in complete agreement with the same. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, these Letters Patent Appeals are devoid of any merit and accordingly, they are dismissed with no order as to costs.