JUDGMENT : K. Kumaresh Babu, J. (Prayer: Writ Appeals have been filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent against the order dated 13.06.2013 made in W.P.No.3366 of 2033.) 1. This Intra-Court Appeal had been preferred by the appellant challenging a common order passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. Heard Mr. L. Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Mr. R. Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 3. Mr. L. Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that an award came to be passed by an individual Arbitrator and the same was implemented in the year 1997. An employee by name Mr. R. Manimuthu had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.1031 of 1999, before this Court seeking for benefit of promotion with all attended benefits with retrospective effect and the said Writ Petition came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 05.02.2002. The said order of the learned Single Judge was also confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.799 of 2002 and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.774 of 2012, by order dated 21.02.2012. The members of the appellant Union are also entitled to a similar relief that had been granted by the learned Single Judge in the said Writ Petition. However, the same has not been extended to the members of the appellant Union and therefore, had filed the Writ Petition for mandamus to direct the first respondent to implement the said scheme that was envisaged for the benefit of the employees and give all attendant benefits to its members. 4. He would further submit that the learned Single Judge without looking into the aspect of the merits of the Writ Petition, had rejected the claim of the appellant that the members of the appellants Union are all retired and even the Writ Petitioners who had independently approached the Court have all superannuated, therefore they would not be entitled to the benefit that were bestowed upon the individual Writ Petitioner by the learned Single Judge. He would further submit that the learned Single Judge had held that the Writ Petitioners to be a fence sitter and would not be entitled to be granted of any relief and therefore, he would seek interference with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Countering his arguments, Mr. He would further submit that the learned Single Judge had held that the Writ Petitioners to be a fence sitter and would not be entitled to be granted of any relief and therefore, he would seek interference with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Countering his arguments, Mr. R. Karthikeyan, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that a contempt petition filed for non compliance of the order of the Writ Petition in W.P.No.1031 of 1999, the very same learned Single Judge had held that the persons outside the scope of the order, even though similarly placed would not be entitled to any relief. He would further submit that the members of the appellant Union, who are seeking the relief of parity with the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.1031 of 1999, have all superannuated much before filing of the Writ Petition and further they have all approached this Court, only based upon the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in a Writ Petition filed by an individual employee. He would submit that they being the fence sitter cannot be entitled for the relief as prayed for by them. 6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record. 7. The learned Single Judge in a Writ Petition had given a factual finding that the workers of the first respondent, who are members of the appellant Union have all superannuated and they had approached this Court at a later point of time by trying to take advantage of an order passed in the Writ Petition filed by an individual employee. This fact had not been disputed by the appellants. In fact from the order of the learned Single Judge, it could be seen that it was a common order passed not only in the Writ Petition filed by the appellant, but also certain individual employees and such individual employees have left the matter to rest and acquiesced themselves of their position. The Union being a representative of the workers, who had abandoned their rights cannot now seek to challenge the said order. 8. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge that there has been a delay on the part of the appellant in approaching this Court for the relief. The Union being a representative of the workers, who had abandoned their rights cannot now seek to challenge the said order. 8. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge that there has been a delay on the part of the appellant in approaching this Court for the relief. It could be seen that the appellant had filed the Writ Petition only after the disposal of the Writ Petition filed by an individual employee. In such view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting any interference by this Court. 9. In fine, this Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.