JUDGMENT :- 1. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner Central Bank of India represented by its Regional Manager, Chennai challenging an award passed by the 1st respondent Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (for short 'CGIT'). By the impugned award, the CGIT directed that the payment of arrears of salary with attendant benefits to the 14 Safai Karmacharies concerned in the Dispute as per the settlement dated 28.11.1997 was legal and the workmen are entitled to get arrears of salary. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 2.1.2008. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted interim stay. Subsequently, the interim stay was made absolute on 27.1.2002 and the vacate stay application was dismissed. 3. The case of the 2nd respondent trade union was that on 28.11.1997, the 2nd respondent union along with the other unions entered into a settlement under Section 18(1) of I.D. Act regarding enhancement of wages to part-time employees employed in the Bank. After the settlement was signed, the management bank issued a circular dated 10.12.1997 incorporating the terms of the settlement. Following the circular of the Central Office, the Regional Office also issued a consequential circular on 18.9.1999. By the said settlement dated 28.11.1997, the wages of part-time employees were settled, which is as follows: Subsequent to the settlement dated 28.11.1997, another bipartite settlement dated 27.3.2000 was also arrived at revising the part time wages with effect from 1.11.1997. In that settlement, the following made: But, though they have agreed to revise the wages, they did not pay the enhanced wages and all the 14 employees who were appointed as Safai Karmacharies were not given the benefit of revision. Despite union making recommendation, the bank did not comply with the same. Therefore, the union raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai and he sent a failure report dated 27.1.2002 to the Central Government and the Central Government through the Ministry of Labour vide order dated 20.10.2004 referred the following dispute for adjudication along with the list of employees: "Whether the claim of Central Bank of India Employees' Union for payment of arrears with all attendant benefits to the 14 Safai Karmacharies (As in Annexure) as per the IBA settlement by the management of Central Bank of India is legal and justified" If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to? List of employees: 1. N.P. Pabhavathy 2. C. Kanchana 3. List of employees: 1. N.P. Pabhavathy 2. C. Kanchana 3. Rajina Rani 4. Kondammal 5. Rajeswari 6. Suguna 7. Mariamma 8. Nagammal 9. Adilakshmi 10. Kanthammal 11. Raniammal 12. Alamelu 13. Rajendran 14. Dhavamani" 4. The CGIT registered the dispute as I.D.No.422 of 2004 and issued notice to the parties. The 2nd respondent union filed a claim statement dated 19.1.2005. The management filed a counter statement dated 9.4.2005. In the counter statement, it was contented that the casual workers who are doing the cleaning work in the Bank are not paid wages on par with Safai Karmacharies. In respect of 14 persons, whose names are found in the annexure to the order of reference, in para 7 of the counter it was stated as follows: "7. It is submitted that out of 14 persons mentioned in the annexure to the order of reference, N.P. Prabavathy who was made a regular Safai Karmachari from 27.7.1996 and was made as part-time Safai Karmachari on scale of wages from 27.1.1998 was paid arrears of wages based on settlement dated 28.11.1997 for the period from 27.7.1996. She is not entitled to any arrears for the period prior to 27.7.1996. Similarly, Mrs. Kanchana was absorbed as regular part time Safai Karmachari from 27.7.1996 and she was also paid arrears as from that date. Regarding Mrs. Regina Rani, she was appointed as regular part time Safai Karmachari on consolidate wages from 5.11.1999 and subsequently she was elevated on scale of wages from 11.2.2000. As from 5.11.1999 she was paid wages as applicable to part time Safai Karmachari. In fact she has given a letter dated 5.11.1999 stating that she will not make any claim for arrears of wages in terms of settlement dated 28.11.1997. The other persons mentioned in the annexure to the order of reference would not have worked as regular part time Safai Karmachari during the period from 1.11.1992 and therefore, they would not be entitled to the enhanced wages as per settlement dated 28.11.1997. They are, therefore, not entitled to any arrears of wages." 5. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the workmen, one K. Venkatesan was examined as W.W.1. On the side of the workmen, 24 documents were filed and marked as Ex.W.1 to Ex.W.24. On the side of the management, one K.V.S. Subramanian was examined as M.W.1 and on their side, 32 documents were filed and marked as Ex.M.1 to Ex.M.32. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the workmen, one K. Venkatesan was examined as W.W.1. On the side of the workmen, 24 documents were filed and marked as Ex.W.1 to Ex.W.24. On the side of the management, one K.V.S. Subramanian was examined as M.W.1 and on their side, 32 documents were filed and marked as Ex.M.1 to Ex.M.32. 6. The Labour Court on the basis of the materials came to the conclusion that the denial of wages to the 14 part time employees is nothing but a clear case of unfair labour practice. Hence, they are eligible for enhanced wages together with arrears. 7. The Management also filed an affidavit dated ‘nil’ (February 2012) stating that copies of the two settlements dated 10.4.1989 and 28.11.1997 were not filed before the CGIT, though the order of reference clearly referred to the settlement between the parties and the rights of the workmen flow only from the said settlement. Hence the copies of those settlements should have been received by this Court. Therefore, by way of an additional affidavit, those settlements were taken on file and were also perused. 8. The contentions raised by the Bank was that 14 Safai Karmacharies mentioned in the order of reference were regularised after 1996 and regularisation was given by issuing letters of appointment and thereafter they were paid wages as per the settlement in the scale of pay depending upon the work. The bank had employed the casual labourers. As far as the claim in respect of 14 Safai Karmacharies for wages before 1996 is concerned, the settlement under which reliance was placed upon has clearly held that it is from 1.11.1992 to 31.10.1994 wages were given and from 1.11.1994 revised wages were also given, whereas 14 workers were regularised during 1997 and they were paid arrears of wages from the date of their appointment. They were not eligible for the benefit of settlement, as the clause referred to by them will not apply and if any such interpretation is given, as given by the CGIT, it would amount to extending the benefits of settlement for the workmen, who are not otherwise eligible for such an inclusion. 9. Since the stand of the petitioner management is fully justified and since the workmen represented by the union have already got the benefit, they cannot have a second benefit by the impugned award. 10. 9. Since the stand of the petitioner management is fully justified and since the workmen represented by the union have already got the benefit, they cannot have a second benefit by the impugned award. 10. In the light of the same, the impugned awards suffers from material irregularities and non-application of mind. Hence, the Writ Petition stands allowed. The impugned award stands set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.