Judgment :- 1. The 1st Writ Petition is filed by Madras Corporation Red Flag Union, which is a registered Trade Union with Registration No.185/MDS. It is the case of the petitioner union that the Circular issued by the Corporation pursuant to G.O.(4D) No.5, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 1.7.1993 is illegal and unconstitutional and for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant higher scale of pay relatable to the pay scales as they were drawing in the quarry with all attendant benefits. That Writ Petition was admitted on 6.1.2005. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court granted interim stay of recovery alone until further orders and this Court also observed that when the pay of an employee is fixed in a particular scale of pay, payment of increment would automatically follow. In the Miscellaneous Petition in M.P.No.18539 of 2006 seeking for interim direction to pay the Special Grade scales with effect form 1.10.1998 with annual increments, House Rent Allowance, Dearness Allowance and other allowance, no orders have been passed. On notice from this Court, the 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 8.1.2007. Though the matter was adjourned from time to time, there has been no counter affidavit on the side of the State Government, though their Order is under challenge. 2. Even during the pendency of that Writ Petition, another trade Union by name Corporation of Labour Union with Registration No.2601 represented by its President filed the second Writ Petition No.1322 of 2007 claiming for a Declaration that the very same G.O., dated 14.7.1993 issued by the State Government is illegal and unconstitutional and for a consequential direction to fix the pay scale to the members of the trade union, whose names are mentioned in the annexure, in the pay scale of Rs.265-425 with increments and revisions. That Writ Petition was admitted on 10.1.2007. Though the matter was adjourned several times, there has been no counter affidavit either on the side of the Corporation or on the side of the State Government. Therefore, this Court is forced to pass orders on the basis of available materials. 3. The case of the workers represented by the two Unions has a chequered history. Initially, they were employed in the Stone Quarry at Pallavaram operated by the Corporation of Chennai. Therefore, this Court is forced to pass orders on the basis of available materials. 3. The case of the workers represented by the two Unions has a chequered history. Initially, they were employed in the Stone Quarry at Pallavaram operated by the Corporation of Chennai. Subsequently, the quarries were closed and the hillock was handed over to the Structure Testing Centre attached to ICSR and thereby its workmen were unemployed. To the efforts taken by the Unions, the Corporation was forced to absorb these workers pursuant to the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. As most of the workers were not recruited for any service in the Corporation, the Corporation has agreed to accommodate them in the Education Department as Night Watchmen in the various Schools run by the Corporation. 4. Pursuant to the settlement dated 12.10.1978, the workers were posted in various Corporation Schools as Night Watchmen and their pay was also fixed depending upon the length of service and also by giving advance increments. The State Government issued G.O.No.161, MAWS Department dated 12.3.1985 with reference to the absorption of Pallavaram Quarry Workers by creating supernumerary posts in the Corporation. In the said G.O, the Corporation of Chennai was permitted to absorb the staff with pay protection given to them by which they were directed to be continued with their last drawn pay in the original scale till their retirement or absorption elsewhere. 5. Notwithstanding the said G.O., since the workers were paid increment on the last drawn pay, the Commissioner of Local Fund Audit attached to Corporation raised an objection that payment of increment and revision of scale of pay in respect of those workers was not valid and it is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.161, MAWS Department dated 12.3.1985. This necessitated the Commissioner to address a letter to the State Government with reference to the guideline being issued for absorption of those workers in various regular posts in the Corporation. The State Government subsequently issued a Clarification letter dated 18.12.1989 allowing the workers to draw their last drawn pay in the original time scale of pay and the corresponding revised scale of pay with periodical increments. 6. The State Government subsequently issued a Clarification letter dated 18.12.1989 allowing the workers to draw their last drawn pay in the original time scale of pay and the corresponding revised scale of pay with periodical increments. 6. In the meanwhile, the Corporation of Chennai through its Commissioner addressed a communication to the State Government recommending the fixation of new scale of pay payable to the post of Night Watchman and also regarding the absorption of staff in other Departments. The State Government on considering the representation made by the Commissioner vide its letter dated 23.10.1992 issued the impugned G.O.(4D) No.5, MA&WS Department dated 14.7.1993. In the said G.O., the State Government declined to consider the new pay scale in respect of those workers and directed their continuation in the Education Department as Night Watchmen in the scale of pay of Rs.250-400. Then the Corporation was directed to consider the case of the workers for absorption in other Departments if they are otherwise qualified to hold the other posts. In paragraph 4 of the said G.O., the Government also directed the Corporation not to resort to any direct recruitment until the qualified labourers of the Quarry working as Night Watchmen are absorbed in full in other Department of the Corporation in the posts having scales of pay equivalent to the scales of pay drawn by them in the Quarry. 7. The petitioners were not aware of the real impact of the said G.O. They have not chosen to challenge the said order immediately after the G.O., was issued or after some reasonable time. But they have come to this Court after a period of 12 years in the 1st Writ Petition and 14 years in the 2nd Writ Petition. The reason prompted the union to come to this Court was the audit objections made by the Local Fund Audit in the Audit Report for the year 1986-87, wherein the Audit party raised a query that the workers were paid in excess of the State Government Order in G.O.MS.No.161, MA&WS Department dated 12.3.1985. 8. It was at this juncture, the Education Department of the Corporation in respect of 36 Night Watchmen found the amount of excess should be recovered. When this was made public, the Trade Unions sent a communication to the Corporation. Therefore, immediately after the G.O, the Corporation did not recover the amounts. 8. It was at this juncture, the Education Department of the Corporation in respect of 36 Night Watchmen found the amount of excess should be recovered. When this was made public, the Trade Unions sent a communication to the Corporation. Therefore, immediately after the G.O, the Corporation did not recover the amounts. It is only when the Education Department of the Corporation issued a Circular on 5.8.2004 stating that unless recoveries are made, action will be taken against the subordinate officers, the Writ Petitions came to be filed. Thereafter, this Court granted interim stay of recovery alone as against the alleged excess pay. After the interim order was passed, the Education Officer by a communication dated 4.4.2005 directed not to recover any alleged excess payment and regulation of the scale of pay will be decided only after further orders. In the meanwhile, regular increment in the time scale of pay was alleged to be sanctioned in respect of the workers. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation, it was contended that an option was given to the workers at the time of retrenching them due to closure of the quarry to join the available vacancies, otherwise they will be retrenched. It is also stated that the impugned G.O., dated 14.7.1993 has only given pay protection with effect from 16.12.1981 on the basis of the last drawn wages in the quarry and various scales of pay for various posts in the quarry were also set out in paragraph 6 of the counter. So far as Hammerman, Maistry, Chip Breaker, Male Thozhalali, Cleaner, the scale of pay before 15.12.1981 was Rs.265-425. With reference to the posts of Watchman, Lascar, Scavenger, Female Breaker, it was Rs.250-400 and therefore it is stated that there was no case for revising the scale of pay in the new scale of pay of Rs.265-425, as at the relevant times, the workers were not holding the same scale of pay in the quarry. It was also stated that around Rs.200/-per month was ordered to be recovered as excess payment. Since the authorities were threatened with disciplinary action, the Corporation did not have any other option except to recover the alleged excess payment. It is further pointed out that in view of successive pay commission reports, namely, 4th, 5th and 6th Pay Commissions, the corresponding revision of salary has taken place in their scale of pay. Since the authorities were threatened with disciplinary action, the Corporation did not have any other option except to recover the alleged excess payment. It is further pointed out that in view of successive pay commission reports, namely, 4th, 5th and 6th Pay Commissions, the corresponding revision of salary has taken place in their scale of pay. They are also permitted to retire at the age of 60 years treating them as last grade Government servants. 10. The case of the petitioner in the 2nd Writ Petition was that there were 483 workers in the quarry, out of which, 213 workers were covered by the audit objection and in respect of only 36 Night Watchmen, recovery threat has been made. It was further pointed out that the workers were absorbed pursuant to the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which gave them pay protection and at the time of absorption in the Education Department, they were sanctioned the scale of pay of Rs.250-400, whereas the workers were given impression that they will be provided jobs carrying the same scale of pay in the Corporation. Even G.O.Ms.No.161, MA&WS Department dated 12.03.1985 has been subsequently clarified. Therefore, it was not correct to say any excess amount has been paid. It is also stated that freezing their salary to the last drawn salary, which they were receiving as quarry workers, is illegal and unjust. Therefore, they claim the appropriate scale of pay of Rs.265-425 should be paid to them. 11. First of all, the petitioners have not explained as to why the earlier G.O of the year 1993 came to be challenged long after the issuance of the G.O. In any event, the contention raised by the Unions that when the amounts that have been paid are sought to be recovered or revised, the workmen must be given appropriate notice. Since these workers are industrial workers, they are covered by the provisions of Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, unless a prior notice is given, the recovery was illegal. Out of 218 workers absorbed, already 55 workers died or retired and some of them are receiving pension. Therefore, at this stage, recovering the amount is improper and not justified. This contention raised by the Unions is well founded. 12. Therefore, unless a prior notice is given, the recovery was illegal. Out of 218 workers absorbed, already 55 workers died or retired and some of them are receiving pension. Therefore, at this stage, recovering the amount is improper and not justified. This contention raised by the Unions is well founded. 12. The Supreme Court inSYED ABDUL QADIR AND OTHERS VS STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 held as follows: "57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana, Shyam Babu Verma Vs. Union of Inida, Union of India Vs. M.Bhaskar, V.Gangaram Vs. Director, Col. B.J.Akkara (Retd) Vs. Govt. of India, Purshottam Lal Das Vs State of Bihar, Punjab National Bank Vs Manjeet Singh and Biha SEB Vs Bijay Bhadur. 59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter-affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter-affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made. 61. In the result, the appeals are allowed in part; the impugned judgment so far as it relates to the direction given for recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers is set aside and that part of the impugned judgment whereby it has been held by the Division Bench that the amended provisions of FR 22-C would apply to the appellant teachers is upheld. We direct that no recovery of the excess amount, that has been paid to the teachers of secondary schools, be made, irrespective of the fact whether they have moved this Court or not. We also direct that the amount that has been recovered from some of the teachers, after the impugned judgment was passed by the High Court, irrespective of the fact whether they have moved this Court or not, be refunded to them within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment." 13. We also direct that the amount that has been recovered from some of the teachers, after the impugned judgment was passed by the High Court, irrespective of the fact whether they have moved this Court or not, be refunded to them within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment." 13. Therefore, both the Writ Petitions are allowed to the extent that the Corporation is restrained from recovering any amount from the workers covered by the two unions on the ground that the payments were made in excess of the amount due to them and since they were absorbed pursuant to the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, unless the settlement is terminated and proper notice is given under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Corporation cannot recover the amount, notwithstanding the so-called threat made by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.161, MA&WS Department dated 12.3.1985. As rightly contended, the State Government itself has given clarification that the workers are eligible for corresponding revision and annual increments even on the last drawn pay. 14. With reference to the new scale of pay in respect of those workers, as the proposal sent by the Commissioner has been rejected by the State Government and the petitioners have come forward to challenge the G.O., after a long delay of 10 years and they have also subsequently enjoyed the various revisions of 4th, 5th and 6th Pay Commissions, this Court is not inclined to entertain such Writ Petitions seeking change of new scales of pay. Further, the workers of the petitioners unions are governed by the Industrial Disputes Act and with reference to the dispute, they can always raise an appropriate dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act before the Industrial Tribunal and satisfy the Tribunal for the appropriate scale of pay. 15. Hence, the Writ Petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above with liberty to the members of the petitioner Unions to raise appropriate dispute or once again represent the State Government for a different scale of pay. However, the parties are allowed to bear their own costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.