Judgment :- In this batch of writ petitions, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the Conductors and Drivers appointed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. subsequent to 01.01.1980 are entitled to be paid incentive increment for their holding Graduate qualification. A settlement was arrived at between the Corporation itself and its Union on 15.07.1972, marked as Ex.M.1, providing for three increments of Rs.10/-each for the Drivers and Conductors, who possess the qualification of Under Graduate Degree. However, the Corporation denied the benefit to the Conductors, who are appointed subsequent to 01.01.1980. The 2nd respondent in each of these writ petitions filed petitions under section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’) before the Labour Court, Guntur, claiming the benefit of increments. According to them, the agreement that was entered into on 15.07.1972 was reiterated in the subsequent years also and there was no basis for the petitioner herein in denying the benefit. The petitioner filed counters separately, opposing the petitions. According to it, pay scales were revised with effect from 01.01.1980 and the Circulars issued on 24.04.1982 and 31.05.1982 have virtually done away with the concept of incentive increments for candidates holding degree qualification. The Labour Court allowed the petitions, through common award dated 12.10.1999. Hence, these writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the benefits of incentive increments were extended to the graduates on the strength of settlement dated 15.07.1972, the same was discontinued, when the pay scales were revised with effect from 01.01.1980. He further submits that the Labour Court did not take the actual purport of the Circulars dated 24.04.1992 and 31.05.1982, marked as Exs.A.3 and A.4. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/employees on the other hand submits that the settlement, dated 15.07.1972 was not modified, much less superseded and that the petitioner placed a distorted interpretation of Exs.A.3 and A.4. The Labour Court framed only one pint for its consideration viz., whether the petitioners (employees) are entitled for three increments for possessing higher qualification as prayed for. On behalf of the employees, Exs.W.1 to W.7 were marked and on behalf of the petitioner, Exs.M1 to M4 were filed. No oral evidence was adduced. The undisputed fact is that the settlement-Ex.M.1 provided for payment of three advance increments, of Rs.10/-each in favour of the Drivers and Conductors, who acquired Under Graduate Degree qualification. On behalf of the employees, Exs.W.1 to W.7 were marked and on behalf of the petitioner, Exs.M1 to M4 were filed. No oral evidence was adduced. The undisputed fact is that the settlement-Ex.M.1 provided for payment of three advance increments, of Rs.10/-each in favour of the Drivers and Conductors, who acquired Under Graduate Degree qualification. On the eve of revision of pay scales in the year 1977, the scheme was explained to the effect that either the increments be merged in the basic pay and the employee be fitted into the revised pay scales on that basis, or the increments under the pre-revised pay scales be withdrawn and fresh increments be allowed in the revised pay scale. It was worked out according to the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. Another revision of pay scales took place in the year 1980 with effect from 01.01.1980. Almost similar exercise was undertaken and the Circular, dated 24.04.1982 was marked as Ex.M.3. It is to the effect that the increments awarded in favour of Graduate Conductors and Drivers be merged into the basic pay and such merged basic pay be fitted against the revised pay scales. Nowhere in Exs.M.3 and M.4, it was mentioned that the concept of advance increment is given up or done away with. The settlement arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Act would continue to be in force, till it is modified or given up through the same mechanism. No part of the Settlement can be unilaterally altered in its purport. Strictly speaking, the Corporation could not have issued any Circulars at all, withdrawing the benefit under the Settlement. The Labour Court has taken correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the common award. Therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions filed in these writ petitions also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.