JUDGMENT : AKIL KURESHI, J. 1. The petitioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Mazdoor Association, has filed this petition espousing the cause of the Assistant Engineers of the respondent Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. They have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the Corporation to give retrospective effect to the revision of wages of the Assistant Engineers from the scale of Rs.1640-2900 to Rs.2000-3200 with effect from 1.1.1986, as is given to similarly situated employees of the State Government. 2. Brief facts are as under : 2.1. The petitioner is an association of employees of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. The petitioner claims that the Assistant Engineers of the Corporation are also its members. The petitioner therefore, espouses the cause of the said class of the employees. The Municipal Corporation employees were clamouring since long for revision of the pay structure. Simultaneously, the State Government also was in the process of revising the pay scales of its employees for which the pay commission was set up. Insofar as the Corporation employees are concerned, the employees as well as the Corporation decided to resort to arbitration. Shri G.S. Barot, the sole arbitrator gave his award dated 31.7.1987. From the award itself, it appears that in the meantime, the State Government also received the recommendations of the 4th pay commission and implemented the same with minor modifications by way of Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1987(notified in Gazette on 1.6.1987). The arbitrator took into account various factors including the revision of pay granted by the State Government to its employees. He pegged the scales of the Corporation employees at par with those of the State Government employees. In view of such substantial pay revision, he was of the opinion that the employees cannot demand a retrospective effect from 1.7.1983. On one hand, the pay was being revised handsomely, as a trade off, he curtailed the retrospectivity of the revision in his award to 1.1.1986. We may record his reasons for such revision and limited retrospectivity in his own words : "2.4 In my Award part II I have traced in brief the history regarding the pay structure of the workmen of the Corporation. It was for the first time, through the Award of the Learned Arbitrator Shri I.G. Thakore that the workmen of the Corporation were, as far as possible, put on par with those of the State Government. It was for the first time, through the Award of the Learned Arbitrator Shri I.G. Thakore that the workmen of the Corporation were, as far as possible, put on par with those of the State Government. The State Government had at that time implemented the recommendations of the Gujarat State Second pay Commission popularly known as the Desai Commission. Those the revised pay scales recommended by the Desai Commission and accepted by the State Govt. more or less, came to be granted to the workmen of the Corporation. Now, so far as the date of effect is concerned, the State Government had brought the revised pay scales in effect nationally from 1.1.1973 but effectively from 1.1.1974 while Shri Thakore Award give effect from 1.1.1976 (though the relevant Arbitration Agreement was published in August, 1974). I have already discussed on pages 24 and 25 of my Award part II the reasons why the learned Arbitrator Shri Thakore did not stick to the same date as decided by the State Government but instead decided a date three years subsequent to the date decided by the State Government for its employees. In fact, prior to making my Award part II Shri Gandhi, the learned advocate for the Corporation, had contended that this time also effect should be given from a later date, to which I did not agree. For the reasons recorded in my Award part II, I have come to the conclusion that the revised pay scales should be granted to the workmen of the Corporation from the same date as decided by the State Government for its employees viz 1.1.1986. to repeat those reasons here for the sake of clarity, the workmen of the Corporation at that time were getting 100% Central Dearness Allowance whereas the State Govt, employees were receiving much less by way of Dearness Allowance. To balance this position, the learned Arbitrator Shri Thakore, instead of curtailing the Dearness Allowance, shortened the retrospective effect. This in effect with the Award of Shri Thakore the workmen of the Corporation, more or less, came on par with those of the State Government in as much as shorter retrospective effect was offset against some what larger dearness allowance. To balance this position, the learned Arbitrator Shri Thakore, instead of curtailing the Dearness Allowance, shortened the retrospective effect. This in effect with the Award of Shri Thakore the workmen of the Corporation, more or less, came on par with those of the State Government in as much as shorter retrospective effect was offset against some what larger dearness allowance. Those very scales which were applicable to the employees of the State Government have been revised by the State Government with effect from 1.1.1986 and therefore when I have put the Corporation on par with the State Government even from the point of view of equity, the workmen of the Corporation cannot be given effect from an earlier date. 2.5 It has however been forcefully contended by Shri Dixit that the demand for revision of the pays scales etc of the workmen concerned here in was made as far back as in the year 1980 and it was in 1980 that the Corporation itself agreed, in principle to refer the matter for arbitration that is was not fault of the workmen that the arbitration agreement finally came to be entered into in 1984 and that therefore considering the general principles in regard to grant of retrospective effect in adjudications or arbitration under the Industrial Disputes Act, a much earlier retrospective effect should be granted. In this connection, it my firstly be observed that it is by now a settled position of law that grant of retrospective effect depends upon the totality of circumstances and one of the relevant considerations in the financial burden on the concern. While I shall advert to the question of financial burden later in this Award, I would like to discuss certain other circumstances which be a direct bearing on the date of retrospective effect in this case. 2.6 As stated above, the State Government had earlier revised the pay scales of its employees from 1.1.1973( notionally) and 1.1.1974 (effectively). There after the State Government appointed its next pay commission (known as the Gujarat State Third pay commission) on 11th October, 1982. The said Commission gave its report on 4th June, 1985. While this report was under the consideration of the Govt. of the fourth Central Pay Commission forwarded its report to the Govt. of India on 30th June, 1986. There after the State Government appointed its next pay commission (known as the Gujarat State Third pay commission) on 11th October, 1982. The said Commission gave its report on 4th June, 1985. While this report was under the consideration of the Govt. of the fourth Central Pay Commission forwarded its report to the Govt. of India on 30th June, 1986. After studying this report of the fourth Central pay Commission, the Association/Federations of the employees of the State Government represented before the Govt, to give them benefits on the lines of the Fourth Central Pay commission into and not as per the report of the Gujarat State Third pay Commission. After careful consideration of these representations, the State Government decided to accept, in principle, to apply the recommendations of the Fourth Central pay Commission including its date of effect, to the employees of the State Govt. it is noteworthy here that the Gujarat State Third pay Commission formulated the revised pay scales based on index average 500, as on 1st June, 1983 and as such it gave effect to the revised pay scales from 1st July, 1983. As against this, the Fourth Central pay commission based the revised pay scales recommended but it on index average 608 which was reached on 31st December 1985. Thus, the effect recommended by the Fourth Central Pay Commission was from 1st January, 1986, which was accepted by the Central Govt. In view of the apparent benefits flowing from the recommendations of the Fourth pay commission (which were accepted by the Central Government with slight modifications) the employees of the State Government preferred the Central pay scales with 1.1.1986 as its date of effect though they could have get 1.7.1983 as the date of effect with the pay scales recommended by the Gujarat State Third pay Commission. These very central pay scales, to get which the employees of the State Government had a hard time in persuading the State Government are now being granted to the workmen of the Corporation, The benefits are without doubt much higher than those which I as an Arbitration would have been able to grant had this demand come to be decided by me prior to the decision of the State Government to apply the recommendations of the Fourth Central pay Commission to the employees of the State Government. Further, an Award regarding revised of pay scales and allowances etc. Further, an Award regarding revised of pay scales and allowances etc. has to be viewed as as whole and not in parts which is important is the overall gains to the workmen. Here while adopting the State pay scales which in turn are the Central pay scales, the workmen of the Corporation get the benefit of a higher merger of dearness allowances a liberal formula of House Rent Allowance, etc. which are much more beneficial to them not only for the present but on a long term basis. To get these benefits, the State Government employees have also sacrificed in the matter of retrospective effect and wisely so." 2.2. The employees as well as the Corporation both accepted the award. The Corporation implemented the revision in pay scales accordingly. The employees accepted their limited retrospectivity. The matter for some time rested there. As per the award, the Assistant Engineers were placed in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 by the Corporation. The issue resurfaced when the State Government in the year 1991, revised the pay scale of the Assistant Engineers to that of Rs.2000-3200 and granted retrospective effect from 1.1.1986. In this context, the petitioner on behalf of such Assistant Engineers represented to the Corporation for corresponding revision of the pay scales with effect from 1.1.1986. This was not peculiar to Assistant Engineers alone. The State Government had revised the pay scales of various other categories of employees in the year 1991, all with effect from 1.1.1986. The Corporation considered the request of such employees for corresponding revision in their pay scales. Barring isolated case of Town Development Officer, of whom by resolution dated 7.10.1997, such revision was granted with effect from 1.1.1986, with respect to majority of the cadres, the Corporation passed a common resolution dated 24.10.1996, accepted the demands for pay revision on par with the State Government employees, however, granted such benefits only prospectively with effect from 1.4.1996. It is in this background that the petitioner has filed this petition with the prayers as noted above. 3. The learned counsel Shri Acharya for the petitioner vehemently contended that the arbitrator had taken into account the question of pay parity. Upon being convinced that the Corporation employees must get the pay scales on par with the State Government employees, award was passed. Such award was implemented by the Corporation. 3. The learned counsel Shri Acharya for the petitioner vehemently contended that the arbitrator had taken into account the question of pay parity. Upon being convinced that the Corporation employees must get the pay scales on par with the State Government employees, award was passed. Such award was implemented by the Corporation. As a natural corollary therefore, when the State Government revised the scales of its employees, the same must be implemented for the employees of the Corporation from the back date. He further submitted that not granting such pay revision to the Assistant Engineers from the retrospective date, as was done in case of TDOs, has resulted into hostile discrimination. 4. On the other hand the learned counsel Shri Shelat for the Corporation opposed the petition contending that the subsequent pay revision by the State Government was not part of the award covering the Corporation employees. They cannot automatically or ipso facto get such pay revisions. The Corporation considered its financial condition and the ability to pay the higher burden on account of such pay revision and found it unviable to grant such benefits from the back date. The concerned employees if were aggrieved by the pay structure, they had to raise an industrial dispute or resort to arbitration, if aggrieved. They cannot seek parity by virtue of award passed by the arbitrator. 5. The concept of equal pay for equal work has its own limitations. In case of State of U.P. and others v. J.P. Chaurasia and others reported in (1989) 1 Supreme Court Cases 121, the Court held that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" has no mechanical application in every case of similar work. In case of Harbans Lal and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. reported in (1989) 4 Supreme Court Cases 459, it was held that a mere nomenclature designating a person as a carpenter or a craftsman was not enough to come to a conclusion that he was doing the work as another carpenter in regular service. In case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and another v. P. Hari Hara Prasad and others. reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 3645, the Supreme Court observed as under : "4. First we would consider the case in respect of employees of subordinate courts. In case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and another v. P. Hari Hara Prasad and others. reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 3645, the Supreme Court observed as under : "4. First we would consider the case in respect of employees of subordinate courts. The pay scales claimed by them on the basis of Government Order of 1971 have been accepted by the High Court holding that posts in two services are identical and the officials in two different services perform same nature of duties. The two set of employees are governed by different Rules and, therefore, their pay scales and other conditions of service are to be governed by the respective Rules applicable to them. Ordinarily, it is not permissible to go into the nature of duties of employees while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and on that basis direct grant of pay scales which are applicable to employees of a different service. The question of grant of parity of pay to the employees of the courts came up for consideration before a three Judge Bench in State of Maharashtra v. Association of Court Stenos., P.A., P.S. & Anr. [ (2002) 2 SCC 141 ]. Referring to the decision in Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India & Anr., [ (1989) 4 SCC 187 ], it has been held therein that the judgment of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 issuing writ of mandamus directing a particular scale to be given to the courts stenographers, Personal Assistants and Personal Secretaries attached to the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court cannot be sustained. It has further been held that it is no doubt true that the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is an equitable principle but it would not be appropriate for the High Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to examine the nature of work discharged by the staff attached to the Hon'ble Judges of the Court and direct grant of any particular pay scales to such employees. The position is almost same here." 6. Equation of posts and prescription of pay scales is ordinarily the task of an expert body and pay commission. The position is almost same here." 6. Equation of posts and prescription of pay scales is ordinarily the task of an expert body and pay commission. In case of State of Gujarat v. Saurashtra Mazdoor Singh, reported in 2004 (2) GLH 50 , the Division Bench of this Court observed that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not that of the judiciary. The Courts ordinarily ought not to enter into such a task of job evaluation. 7. Bearing in mind such principles, if we come back to the facts of the case, it emerges that previously the disputes between the employees and the Corporation were placed before the Tribunal for arbitration by the sole arbitrator. Demands of the employees for revision of the pay scales from 1980 was examined, considered and partially granted. The pay of all the employees were equated with those of the State Government employees which they were receiving under the revised scales pursuant to the 4th pay commission recommendations. The Tribunal was of the opinion that such revision was far in excess of what he would himself have granted. Under the circumstances, he limited the retrospectivity operation of such revision to 1.1.1986 against those demanded by the employees from the year 1983. In his opinion this was a trade off. The employees were getting much greater pay enhancement while the retrospectivity operation of such revision revision was being to an extent curtailed. 8. As noted, both the sides seemed satisfied with the award. Neither the Corporation nor the employees challenged the same. Only question, therefore, is would the employees be entitled to an automatic pay revision on account of the fact that the State Government adopted such a course for its employees in the year 1991 and granted back date effect of 1.1.1986? The answer has to be in the negative. The arbitrator had given his award on the basis of facts and figures presented before him. He was of the opinion that the revision of the pay of the Corporation employees on par with the State Government employees, was a sufficient increase in their salary levels. He ordered accordingly. If later on the scales of the State Government employees went upward revision with effect from 1.1.1986, the award did not envisage any automatic revision in case of Corporation employees as well. He ordered accordingly. If later on the scales of the State Government employees went upward revision with effect from 1.1.1986, the award did not envisage any automatic revision in case of Corporation employees as well. The State Government's subsequent developments and improvements in the pay scales of such employees cannot be telescoped into the award of the arbitrator. 9. Independently, of such consideration, the Corporation also has justified limited retrospectivity to revise the scales of the employees. In a note, placed before the general body of the Corporation, recommending that the demands of the employees for pay revision may be granted, it was pointed out that the same may be effective from 1.4.1996, as the financial condition of the Corporation would not permit any anterior revision. We may record the recommendations of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Administration) as under : "This is regarding the revision of grades of certain officers such as teaching staff of the Medical college, the superintendents, Dean, Assistant Engineers, etc. as shown in the statement at page no.57 on the lines of the grade given by the State Government to these categories of people. We have already given the benefit of Industrial Tribunal's Award to our staff and the grades as were approved by the Govt. earlier to our officers, but subsequent revision done by the State Government have not been accepted by us so far due to our financial constraints. The Corporation was passing through a critical financial position for nearly a decade and now since the Corporation's finances have improved we may consider giving of the grades on the lines of State Government to these officers prospectively. We cannot take the burden of arrears by giving retrospective effect to the new pay scales. We may at the most consider the revising of grades from 1.4.1996 i.e. this financial year which will add to the burden of the Corporation by Rs.36 lac per year. Only such categories of posts are covered under this proposal where the State Government has revised the grades. This does not cover the categories of posts where automatic promotion are to be given on completion of certain years of service. That matter will be dealt with separately as the matter is presently in the Court. I do appreciate the concern of the Asst. This does not cover the categories of posts where automatic promotion are to be given on completion of certain years of service. That matter will be dealt with separately as the matter is presently in the Court. I do appreciate the concern of the Asst. Municipal Commissioner abut the disparity that will be caused by revising the grades of the teaching staff of the Medical College and Hospitals higher than that of Dy. Commissioners. But I think it is not the quantum of work that one puts in that is counted while fixing the pay scales. There are several other parameters for awarding of grades which Government must have, in its wisdom considered while deciding the grades for various categories of posts. We may therefore, recommend to the Standing Committee to award the grades to the 14 categories of posts shown in the statement on page 57 & 58 including the Town Development Dept, & Estate Dept. Inspectors and Sub-Inspect at sr no.9 & 10 who are on par with Asst. Engineers prospectively or with effect from 1.4.1996." 10. Pursuant to such recommendations, the general body adopted the resolution, implemented the pay revision, but did not accept the request of the employees to grant effect of 1.1.1986 as was done in the case of the State Government employees. We do not find any illegality in the process. Reference to the retrospective revision in case of TDO would also not help the petitioners. It is pointed out that there was only 17 posts of TDO and the financial burden of pay revision was Rs.36 lakhs per annum as against 177 posts of Assistant Engineers with financial implication of Rs.9,12,000/. This was clearly a distinguishing feature. We may notice that such revision was granted to number of other employees, also with effect from April 1996 and not earlier. 11. Therefore, the twin grounds of the petitioner must fail. Such grounds, we may recall, are that by virtue of award of the sole arbitrator, any revision of the Government scales would automatically apply to the Corporation employees and that the same having been implemented in case of TDOs with back date, must be done so in case of Assistant Engineers also. 12. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.