JUDGMENT : PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. 1. In the instant writ application, the petitioners being non-technical employees have called in question the Clause no.7 of the office order dated 30.12.2006, vide Annexure-2 to the writ application, and have prayed for quashing of the said clause. Further prayer has been made for reduction of the eligibility period for consideration for promotion of other categories of workmen (non technical/Para Medical Staff) at the ratio of the Technical employees since in case of technical staff one year has been reduced for eligibility. Further prayer has been made to maintain the parity in service norms between technical and non-technical supervisors/employees of the Corporation. 2. The facts, as has been described in the writ application, in a nutshell is that in view of long standing dispute and inconsistency in the time bound promotion to the level of supervisory post an order was passed under Section 10A of the I.D. Act, which inter alia provided time bound promotion on the basis of the recommendation of Dr. Binod Kumar and the management accepted the recommendation and issued circular dated 14.10.1985 wherein it was circulated that the recommendation of Dr. Binod Kumar shall be binding and all future promotion shall be made on the basis of the same. In spite of issuance of circular dated 14.10.1985, since the report of Dr. Binod Kumar Committee was not implemented in right prospective, the matter went up to the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Nani Gopal Sarkar vs. H.E.C. reported in AIR 1990 SC 1391 wherein the benefit of time bound promotion was extended to the petitioner as per Binod Kumar report. As per the Binod Kumar recommendation there will be one tire promotion, was introduced for all technical and non technical employees and there would be one year difference for non supervisory level employees, fixing six years for promotion of technical employees at the non supervisory level and seven years for non technical stream. In view of the implementation of the Binod Kumar Committee report the petitioners being non technical employees were given promotion after seven years and the details of promotion of the petitioners have been given in para 11 of the writ application. In view of the implementation of the Binod Kumar Committee report the petitioners being non technical employees were given promotion after seven years and the details of promotion of the petitioners have been given in para 11 of the writ application. It has been averred that a circular dated 31.12.2006 has been issued by the respondent no.3 whereby the eligibility period for consideration of promotion of the existing technical workers with effect from 31.12.2006 and onwards has been fixed for five years. By virtue of the said circular, the eligibility period for consideration of promotion to the technical employees has been reduced from six years to five years whereas eligibility period for consideration of promotion of other categories of workers (non-technical/ para medical staff) ordered to remain unchanged, the copy of the said circular is at Annexure-2 to the writ application. It has further been averred that in pursuance to the memorandum of agreement dated 27.11.2006 and Clause (6) of the memorandum of agreement dated 26.12.2006, as many as 105 Assistant Forman have been promoted to the post of Jr. Manager vide office order dated 27.01.2007 as per Annexure-3 to the writ application. It has further been asserted that some of the petitioners were promoted to the post of Supervisory Grade along with other technical employees vide same promotion order dated 24.08.2004 vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Consequent upon the changed situation in view of the circular dated 30.12.2006, the technical officers who were promoted along with the petitioner no.1 again were promoted to the post of Jr. Manager (E1) with effect from 30.12.2006 whereas non technical employees have not been give promotion. The promotion of the technical officer has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ application. It has further been submitted that all the technical officers were promoted to the post of Jr. Manager whereas the petitioners being non technical have to wait for further four years time to get their promotion. Therefore, it has been submitted that consequent upon the changed situation after office order dated 31.12.2006 the eligibility period for consideration in case of technical employees vis-à-vis the non technical employees up to supervisory level is five years and seven years respectively. Therefore, it has been submitted that consequent upon the changed situation after office order dated 31.12.2006 the eligibility period for consideration in case of technical employees vis-à-vis the non technical employees up to supervisory level is five years and seven years respectively. Being aggrieved by the circular dated 31.12.2006 the petitioner submitted several representations ventilating their grievance relating to technical and non technical employees of the Corporation but the same representation vide Annexures-6 and 7 to the writ application having fallen on deaf ears, have compelled the petitioners to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances. 3. A supplementary affidavit dated 09.05.2012 has been filed by the petitioners annexing Dr. Binod Kumar report as Annexure-8 and on the basis of the Circular no.53/1985 dated 14.10.1985 has been issued by the HEC accepting the recommendation of the Dr. Binod Kumar report as per Annexure-9 to the supplementary affidavit. The circular No.1/2006 dated 31.12.2006 which has been issued by the respondent no.3 reducing the eligibility period for consideration of promotion accepting the technical workers from six years to five years is impugned in this writ application. During pendency of the writ application, the respondents have again reduced the eligibility period for consideration for promotion of technical supervisor vide order dated 30.12.2011whereby seven years of regular service regarding technical supervisor appearing in paragraph-5(b) of the circular no.01/2006 dated 30.12.2006 is substituted with the words ‘Four years regular service’ as per Annexure-10 to the supplementary affidavit, therefore, by virtue of the said circular eligibility period has been reduced from five years to four years for technical supervisors. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted with vehemence that the impugned order dated 30.12.2006, vide Annexure-2, is illegal, invalid and in violation of Dr. Binod Kumar’s Committee report and the action of the respondents in reducing the eligibility period for consideration for promotion of technical staff without considering the case of non technical /para medical staffs, amounts to arbitrary exercise of power, being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Binod Kumar’s Committee report and the action of the respondents in reducing the eligibility period for consideration for promotion of technical staff without considering the case of non technical /para medical staffs, amounts to arbitrary exercise of power, being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that in view of the reduction of eligibility period in case of technical staffs, the petitioners being non technical staffs, are entitled to be extended parity of treatment in so far as reduction of eligibility is concerned, and the petitioners are entitled to be extended with the similar benefits for eligibility of promotion with all consequential benefits at par with the technical staffs. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent are duty bound to maintain only one year difference between the technical and non technical employees as per the Dr. Binod Kumar’s Committee report which has got the stamp of approval of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 5. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents. In the counter affidavit it has been inter alia submitted that slower growth in comparison to non technical employees, the technical employees remained dissatisfied with the Dr. Binod Kumar’s report. They vented their resentments from time to time at various forums. In the mean time, the performance of the company deteriorated and the company was declared a sick industrial company and referred to BIFR in 1992. The company took various measures including implementation of Voluntary Retirement Scheme, thereby reducing manpower substantially for survival of the company. In 2006 the performance of the company started showing improvement and the issue of dissatisfaction of technical employees over the longer period of services required to be served by them for promotion in comparison to the non technical employees was taken up. The Unions contended that the technical workers, being directly involved with the production, deserve faster growth in comparison to the non technical employees. Keeping into consideration the improving performance of the company and with a view to keep technical workers morale high and continue to elicit their unstinted efforts necessary for achieving higher growths rates in subsequent years with reduced technical manpower, it was felt imperative to address the resentment amongst the workers over the issue of their career growth. Keeping into consideration the improving performance of the company and with a view to keep technical workers morale high and continue to elicit their unstinted efforts necessary for achieving higher growths rates in subsequent years with reduced technical manpower, it was felt imperative to address the resentment amongst the workers over the issue of their career growth. It has further been submitted that with a view to address the promotion related issues of the Non Executive of the Corporation, detailed discussions were held with all registered Unions and after exhaustive deliberations, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) under Section 2 (p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has been arrived at with all registered unions including the recognized union on 26.12.2006. The implementation of the agreements reached in the aforesaid MOA dated 26.12.2006 has been notified vide Circular No.01/2006 dated 30.12.2006 (Annexure-2 o the writ petition). 6. It has further been submitted that the salient points of the revised policy rationalizing the promotion of workers as per the MOA dated 26.12.2006 are as under: 1. The eligibility period for consideration for promotion in respect of technical workers (non supervisory) reduced from six years to five years with effect from 31.12.2006. The eligibility period for promotion of technical supervisor to executive cadre remained same i.e. seven years in the supervisory grade, as of non technical supervisors. 2. As a result of the reduction in the eligibility period for consideration for promotion in respect of technical workers (non supervisory) from six years to five years, the total minimum service required for growth of technical workers to executive grade has been reduced by 5/4 years. A technical worker inducted in Grade F is now required to render service of 32 years (earlier it was 37 years) for growth to executive grade. A technical worker inducted in Grade-E is now required to render service of 27 years (earlier it was 31 years) for growth to executive grade. Thus it may be seen that even after Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated 26.12.2006, the total service of 32 years required for growth of technical workers from Grade-F to executive grade is more than that of 28 years for non technical employees. In respect of technical workers inducted in Grade-E, the total service of 27 years required for their growth to executive grade is less by one year in comparison of 28 years for non technical employees. 3. In respect of technical workers inducted in Grade-E, the total service of 27 years required for their growth to executive grade is less by one year in comparison of 28 years for non technical employees. 3. It has also been agreed at Clause 5 of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated 26.12.2006 that the eligibility period for consideration for promotion of other categories of workmen (non-technical/para medical staff) would remain unchanged. On rationalization of promotion of technical workers and supervisors in terms of Circular No.01/2006 dated 30.12.2006 the period of eligibility for promotion of technical and non technical employees and supervisors will be as under: Technical Employee Non Technical Employees (petitioner’s cadre) Post/Grade Eligibility period for consideration for promotion Post/Grade Eligibility period for promotion Gr. F to Gr. E (Rs.2100-50-2950 to Rs.2140- 60-3160) 5 years as Gr. F Asstt. Gr.III to Asst. Gr.II/Acct. Clerk (Rs.2100- 50-3100 to Rs.2140-60- 3340) 7 years as Asstt. Gr.III Gr. E to Gr. CD (Rs.2140-60-3160) to Rs.2200-70- 3390) 5 years as Gr. E Asstt. Gr.II/Acct Clerk to Asstt. Gr.I/Sub Acct (Rs.2140-60- 3340 to Rs. 2320- 90-3850) 7 years as Asstt. Gr.II/Acct Clerk Gr.CD to Gr.B (Rs.2200-70- 3390 to Rs.2250- 80-3770) 5 years as Gr.CD Gr.B to Gr.A (Rs.2250-80- 3770 to Rs.2320- 90-4030 5 years as Gr. B Gr.A to AF (Rs.2320-90-4030 to Rs.3200-5290) (supervisory) 5 years as Gr. A Asstt. Gr.I /Sub Acct to APO/Acctt. (Rs.2320-90- 3850 to Rs.3200- 5290) (supervisory) 7 years as Asstt. Gr.I/Sub Acctt. AF to Jr. Mgr (E1) (Rs.3200- 5290 to Rs.4000- 7150) (Executive) 7 years as AF APO/Acctt. To Jr. Mgr (E1) (Rs.3200-5290 to Rs.4000-7150) (Executive) 7 years as APO/Acctt. Total Minimum Service required for the growth to the Executive Grade 32 years (if appointed in Gr.F) and 27 years (if appointed to Gr.E) Total Minimum Service required for the growth to the Executive Grade 28 years 7. A supplementary counter affidavit dated 09.05.2012 has been filed on behalf of respondents wherein it has been submitted that the Circular No.01/2006 dated 30.12.2006 has been issued pursuant to an agreement entered into between the management of HEC and their workmen represented through Hatia Project Worker’s Union, Hatia Mazdoor Union, Hatia Kamgar Union (AITUC) and HEC Worker’s union under Section 2 (p) of the Industrial Disputes Act as per the Annexure-B series to the supplementary counter affidavit. 8. 8. As against the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the recommendation of Dr. Binod Kumar Committee was for a short period of ten years and Dr. Binod Kumar suggested various long time measures such as development of a proper personnel policy, organization, employee relation programme etc. In any case, the recommendations of Dr. Binod Kumar on time bound promotions based on eligibility period of 6/7 years was for a short term of around 10 years only, which expired long ago. Learned counsel further submits that in view of agreement entered into between management of HEC and their workmen represented through unions, the said agreement was entered into in view of Section 2 (p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, the agreement was a sequel for issuance of impugned circular. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The agreement entered into and settlement arrived at is binding on all concerned. In this respect learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (1976) 4 SCC 736 (Herbertsons Limited vs. The Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors.) and (2000) 1 SCC 371 (National Engineering Industries Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.). Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the impugned circular dated 30.12.2011 has not been challenged in the writ application, therefore, petitioners are not entitled to any relief so far as said circular is concerned. 9. After considering the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (I) It is not in dispute that the recommendation of Dr. Binod Kumar was meant to obviate the anomaly and discrimination between non technical and technical employees of the HEC and the said recommendation has been accepted and has got the stamp/approval of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1990 SC 1391 (Nani Gopal Sarkar vs. H.E.C.) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court have been pleased to refer the report of Dr. Binod Kumar in paragraph 11 of the judgment and in pursuance to the recommendation of Dr. Binod Kumar in paragraph 11 of the judgment and in pursuance to the recommendation of Dr. Binod Kumar, the Circular no.53/1985 dated 14.10.1985 has been issued by the HEC wherein it has been mentioned that the report is binding on the parties and further promotion shall be on the basis of the same and accordingly the management has accepted the report of the Dr. Binod Kumar. But the impugned Circular no.01/2006 dated 30.12.2006 which has been issued in pursuance to an agreement entered into between the management and their worker represented through Hatia Project Worker’s Union, Hatia Mazdoor Union, Hatia Kamgar Union (AITUC) and HEC Worker’s union under Section 2 (p) of the Industrial Disputes Act. (II) In order to appreciate the contention of the respective parties, it would be apposite to refer Section 2 (p), Section 10(A) and Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which are as under: Section-2 (p)-“settlement” means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to [an officer authorized in this behalf by] the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;] Section-10-A. Voluntary reference of disputes to arbitration-(1) Where any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended and the employer and the workmen agree to refer the dispute to arbitration, they may, at any time before the dispute has been referred under Section 10 to a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal, by a written agreement, refer the dispute to arbitration and the reference shall be to such person or persons (including the presiding officer of a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal) as an arbitrator or arbitrators as may be specified in the arbitration agreement. [(1-A) Where an arbitration agreement provides for a reference of the dispute to an even number of arbitrators, the agreement shall provide for the appointment of another person as umpire who shall enter upon the reference, if the arbitrators are equally divided in their opinion, and the award for the purposes of this Act.] (2) An arbitration agreement referred to in sub-section (1) shall be in such form and shall be signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) A copy of the arbitration agreement shall be forwarded to the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer and the appropriate Government shall, within [one month] from the date of the receipt of such copy, publish the same in the Official Gazette. [(3-A) Where an industrial dispute has been referred to arbitration and the appropriate Government is satisfied that the persons making the reference represent the majority of each party, the appropriate Government may, within the time referred to in subsection (3), issue a notification in such manner as may be prescribed; and when any such notification is issued, the employers and workmen who are not parties to the arbitration agreement but are concerned in the dispute, shall be given an opportunity of presenting their case before the arbitrator or arbitrators.] (4) The arbitrator or arbitrators shall investigate the dispute and submit to the appropriate Government the arbitration award signed by the arbitrator or all the arbitrators, as the case may be. [(4-A) Where an industrial dispute has been referred to arbitration and a notification has been issued under sub-section (3-A), the appropriate Government may, by order, prohibit the continuance of any strike or lock-out in connection with such dispute which may be in existence on the date of the reference.] (5) Nothing in the Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940), shall apply to arbitrations under the section.] Section-18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding-[(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding-[(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. (2) [Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), an arbitration award] which has become enforceable shall be binding on the parties to the agreement who referred the dispute to arbitration.] [(3)] A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Act [or an arbitration award in a case where a notification has been issued under sub-section (3-A) of section 10-A] or [an award [ of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] which has become enforceable] shall be binding on- (a) all parties to the industrial dispute; (b) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the Board, [arbitrator,] [Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal], as the case may be, records the opinion that they were so summoned without proper cause; (c) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is an employer, his heirs, successors or assigns in respect of the establishment to which the dispute relates; (d) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is composed of workmen, all persons who were employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as the case may be, to which the dispute relates on the date of the dispute and all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishment or part. (III) Admittedly, the circular has been issued, basing on the agreement entered into between the respective parties. It has been disclosed in the counter affidavit that due to resentment among the technical employees for their slower growth in comparison with non technical employees, the agreement was entered into so as to redress the grievance of the technical employees and thereafter the impugned circular has been issued. In view of the relevant provisions of the I.D. Act, once the agreement has been entered into between the parties, the same is binding on the parties and the view of this Court gets fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex reported in (1976) 4 SCC 736 (Herbertsons Limited vs. The Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Ors.) and (2000) 1 SCC 371 (National Engineering Industries Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.). (IV) During pendency of the writ application though the Circular No.22/2011 dated 30.12.2011 has been annexed in the supplementary affidavit dated 09.05.2011 filed on behalf of the petitioner but the said circular has not been challenged by way of any amendment in the writ application. 10. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed.