Order : D.N. Patel, J. 1. Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is a parity in duties to be performed by the appellant and other similarly situated employees/workmen working in Civil Engineering, Town Administration Department and Raw Material Department and hence, no error was committed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City in passing an order in favour of the appellant in Reference Case No. 12 of 1998. In fact, looking to the duties to be performed by the Field Assistants where the appellants are working and where other Field Assistants are working in other departments, the nature of the duties is absolutely similar and hence, they are entitled to similar pay scale i.e. Rs.330-440/ 2. Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the tripartite agreement entered into between the Field Assistants of Town Administration Department, Field Assistants of Civil Engineering Department and respondent-Management. On the basis of this Tripartite agreement also the arguments has been canvassed by the counsel for the appellant that they are entitled to similar pay scale, which is given to the Field Assistants of Town Administration Department and at par with the Field Assistants of Civil Engineering Department. These aspects of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P.(L) No 6999 of 2002 vide judgment and order dated 17th October, 2008 and hence, the said judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge may be quashed and set aside. 3. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant, who is original respondent in W.P.(L) No. 6999 of 2002 is seeking similar pay which were prevailing in other departments of the respondent. Though there is no parity of the recruitment process, though there is no parity in the qualification, though there is no parity of the duties performed by them in different departments and after getting promotion in their respective department after several years the industrial dispute was raised under Industrial Disputes Act, 1948 and the reference was preferred being Reference Case No. 12 of 1998, which was allowed by the Labour Court vide award dated 10th August, 2001 against which a writ petition bearing W.P.(L) No No. 6999 of 2002 was instituted by the respondent, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 17th October, 2008 and hence, the original respondent has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 4. 4. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the appellant has failed to prove any parity between the employees of all the three departments viz. Civil Engineering, Town Administration Department and Raw Material Department (where the appellants are working). Thus, in absence of any witness on record the award was passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City in Reference Case No. 12 of 1998 on 10th August, 2001 (pronounced on 25th January, 2002) which was quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge especially in paragraph no.7 onwards of the order, passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. Reasons: 5. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidences on record, it appears that the recruitment process, eligibility criteria and the nature of job of Field Assistants of all the following three Departments viz. (a) Civil Engineering Department; (b) Town Administration Department; and (c) Raw Material Department are different and hence, there cannot be a parity in a pay scale between the appellant and other Field Assistants. These aspects of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition being W.P.(L) No. 6999 of 2002 vide order dated 17th October, 2008. 6. Counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon tripartite agreement. We have perused the said evidence and it appears that there was an tripartite agreement of the Field Assistants of Town Administration Department and Field Assistants of Civil Engineering Department and the respondent wherein, the appellant was not a party at all and hence, the benefit of the tripartite agreement cannot be extended to the appellant because agreement is noting, but, freewill of the parties to such agreement. Agreement is binding to the parties and not to other persons. Moreover, the appellant was not in existence in the organization of Bokaro Steel City when the said tripartite agreement was entered into in 1973. These aspects of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P.(L) No. 6999 of 2002. 7. Agreement is binding to the parties and not to other persons. Moreover, the appellant was not in existence in the organization of Bokaro Steel City when the said tripartite agreement was entered into in 1973. These aspects of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P.(L) No. 6999 of 2002. 7. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 321 especially in para no. 9 as under : “9. …...there are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work of different persons in different organisations or even in the same organisation. It has been held that this is a concept which requires, for its applicability, complete and wholesale identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scales and the other group of employees who have already earned such pay scales. It has been held that the problem about equal pay cannot be translated into a mathematical formula. It was further held as follows; (SCC p-127, para-11) '11. A scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily-wager, he holds no post. The respondent workers cannot be held to hold any posts to claim even any comparison with the regular and permanent staff for any or all purposes including a claim for equal pay and allowances. To claim a relief on the basis of equality, it is for the claimants to substantiate a clearcut basis of equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination before becoming eligible to claim rights on a par with the other group vis-à-vis an alleged discrimination. No material was placed before the High Court as to the nature of the duties of either categories and it is not possible to hold that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is an abstract one.” (Emphasis Supplied) 8. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 279 , especially in para no. 37 as under : “Similarly, in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. The principle of equal pay for equal work was considered in great detail. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 279 , especially in para no. 37 as under : “Similarly, in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. The principle of equal pay for equal work was considered in great detail. In paras 9 and 10 of the said judgment the Supreme Court observed that equation of posts and salary is a complex matter which should be left to an expert body. The courts must realize that the job is both a difficult and time consuming task which even experts having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found it difficult to undertake. Fixation of pay and determination of parity is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. Granting of pay parity by the court may result in a cascading effect and reaction which can have adverse consequences vide Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey.” (Emphasis Supplied) 9. In view of the aforesaid facts, the appellant cannot claim parity in the pay scale looking to the other employees of other departments i.e. Town Administration Department, Civil Engineering Department and Raw Material Department. 10. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in deciding the writ petition being W.P.(L) No. 6999 of 2002 vide order dated 17th October, 2008. We see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and hence, the same is hereby, dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.