WP(C) 8249/2005 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. U K Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H Rahman, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3. The Union of Indi a is represented by Mr. R Sarma, learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India. 2. The employees of the North Eastern Handicrafts & Handlooms Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as ’the Corporation’) a Central Public Sector Undertaki ng, are before the Court with the contention that revised wage benefits followin g the Central Dearness Allowance (hereinafter referred to as ’the CDA’) pattern granted to other Central Public Sector employees have not been granted to them. In the second case i.e. W P (C) No.8249/2005 the grievances pertain to not grant ing the revised wage benefits as per the Industrial Dearness Allowance (hereinaf ter referred to as ’the IDA’) pattern whereas such benefits have been granted to the Managing Director of the Corporation. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the Office Memorandum ( OM) dated 24.10.1997 (Annexure A) issued by the Ministry of Heavy Industries, De partment of Public Enterprises whereby on the basis of the recommendations of th e pay committee and direction of the Apex Court, a decision was taken to impleme nt a higher pay scale for the Public Sector Employees in the CDA pattern. It is claimed that the wages of the employees of the Corporation have been stagnating without revision since 1991 after the 4th Pay Commission and the respondents hav e denied the higher benefits for the employees of the Corporation, although such higher wage benefits have been granted in several Central Public Sector Enterpr ises. 4. In the second case, Mr. U K Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner sub mits that they are entitled to revised pay scale on the IDA pattern w.e.f. 1.1.1 997 and it is claimed that although such higher benefits have been granted to em ployees of other Central Public Sector Enterprises and also to the Managing Dire ctor of the Corporation, the employees working under the Managing Director have however been denied the said benefits. It is contended that the action of the re spondents is discriminatory and is liable to be appropriately interfered with by this Court. 5. Mr. H Rahman, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 su bmits that the CDA patterned scale of pay and higher wage benefits under the IDA pattern cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the employees of the Corporat ion, in as much as, the entitlement is to be considered in light of the guidelin es contained in the OM dated 24.05.2005 issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry o f Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises. Mr. Rahman refers to Clause II of the s aid office memorandum and submits that employees of only those Central Public Se ctor Enterprises that are not loss making and are in a position to absorb the ad ditional expenditure, without any budgetary support from the Government, are ent itled to receive the higher wage benefits. Pointing out that the Corporation is a loss making organization, Mr. Rahman submits that higher pay benefits cannot b e implemented for its employees without Governmental budgetary support and there fore, the employees are not entitled to such benefits. 6. The learned counsel relies upon the Supreme Court decision in the case o f A K Bindal vs. Union of India reported in (2003) 5 SCC 163 to contend that fin ancial capacity of the employer is an important consideration for considering th e pay revision and the employees of loss making enterprises cannot identify them selves with Government employees, to claim higher pay benefits. 7. Referring to the special characteristics of the Corporation and indicati ng that it is only a implementing Agency and there can be no element of profit o r loss in its functioning, Mr. U K Nair submits that the application of the cond itions of the OM dated 24.5.2005 may be entirely misplaced for the Corporation, in as much as, the Corporation is not expected to make any profit or loss in its functioning. 8. As it was reflected in the counter affidavit of the Management that the representations filed by the petitioner Union pertaining to their demand for hig her wage benefits was referred for consideration by the Department of Public Ent erprises, Mr. R Sarma, learned Asstt. Solicitor General was requested to obtain information as to whether any decision has been taken by the Department of Publi c Enterprises on the employees’ representations. But Mr. Sarma submits that he h as not received any information on the fate of the representation filed by the w rit petitioners. 9. Justifying the revised IDA scale of pay for the Managing Director, Mr. H Rahman, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the Managin g Director was allowed the higher wages on his fresh appointment for a term of 5 years in terms of the appointment granted to him and his position cannot be equ ated with that of the employees under the Corporation as the appointment of the Managing Director is processed by the Public Enterprises Selection Board under t he Department of Public Enterprises and he has been engaged with special terms o f pay and allowances. 10. If the OM dated 24.10.1997 is applicable to the employees of the Corpora tion, it being a loss making undertaking and dependent on the budgetary support of the Government, it would be difficult to expect that their employees are enti tled to the benefits of higher wage under the CDA and IDA pattern contemplated f or Central Government employees. Nevertheless no decision has yet been taken on the representation of the employees Union by the Department of Public Enterprise s, Ministry of Heavy Industries, Govt. of India. 11. The special characteristics of the functioning of the Corporation that i t is only an implementing Agency and therefore there cannot be any element of lo ss or profit in its functioning have also not been noted, while declaring that t he employees are not entitled to higher wage benefits because it is a loss makin g concern and the higher outflow of wages cannot be provided without budgetary s upport from the Central Government. At the same time as has been laid down in se veral decisions of the Apex Court including A K Bindal (Supra) that the financia l capacity of the employer is an important criteria to be borne in mind at the t ime of considering demand for higher wages by the employees. 12. Having considered the submissions made and also the fact that the repres entation(s) submitted by the petitioners on their twin claims, are pending for c onsideration with the Department of Public Enterprises, Ministry of Heavy Indust ries, Govt. of India, I consider it appropriate to direct an early decision on t he said representation of the writ petitioners. Accordingly the representation d ated 24.2.2005 [Annexure F in W P (C) No.8429/05] addressed to the Managing Dire ctor and forwarded by the Corporation to the Department, is directed to be consi dered and disposed of within a period of 3 months from today. While considering the said representation, the special nature of the activities and that the Corpo ration is only an implementing Agency be also considered. 13. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of by directing consideratio n of the said representation. 14. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. R Sarma, learned Asstt. Solicit or General for communication to the appropriate Authorities.