THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.A.No.315 of 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per BPR,J) The appellants including the State as well as the A.P. State Construction Corporation Limited filed this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent inter alia seeking to assail the correctness of the Judgment of the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition filed at the instance of its Workers and Employees Union, as per orders in W.P.No.4383 of 2001, dated 6-11- 2003, which is filed by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for Writ of Mandamaus declaring that the order in G.O.Ms.No.155, Irrigation and Command Area Development (PW:ESTT.1) Department, dated 22-11-2000 as illegal and consequently to set aside the same. Briefly, the facts which are not in dispute, which gave rise to the present lis between the Workers Union and the State are that, a Memorandum of Settlement was arrived at on 30-4-1976 between Chief Engineer (Projects). Srisailam Project, Hyderabad and Employes & Mazoor Union, Jateeya Karmika Sangham and Srisailam Project Workers Union, Srisailam Project (Dam East). As per the Settlement 900 workers who have put in more than 5 years of service in the Project were put on the Nominal Muster Rolls and are discharging their duties on par with work-charged employees. There being quite a lot of difference in between the emoluments received by these two wings, the benefit which have been given to the work- charged workers is not being extended to the NMR workers and thus in a meeting held on 13-3-1975 before the then Minister for Labour and the Minister for Power and subsequent discussion at Officers level meeting in the chambers of Chief Secretary on 4-8-1975 and 19-8-1975 and final discussion on 25-10-1975 before the Minister for Power and the Minister for Labour with the representatives of the Union for payment of equal wages for the workers engaged on NMR on par with the work-charged employees engaged in the same type of work, the Government offered payment of equal pay to the NMR workers on par with work-charged employees, especially, for the same nature of work and for the number of days actually worked by NMR Workers. The said offer was accepted by the representatives of the workers union and accordingly putting the same terms, the Memorandum of Settlement was arrived at. Consequently, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.242, dated 1-6-1977 as amended under G.O.Ms.No.145, Irrigation and Power (Projects Wing), Department, dated 31-3-1981. Thus, all along without any demur on the part of the appellants herein all those NMR workers who have been working in the Srisailam Project are getting the same wages on par with the work-charged employees. However, on the premise that this settlement and the payment as agreed to the NMRs compared to the NMRs working elsewhere is creating several legal problems by its mis-representation and further there could not possibly be two different procedures one for the Srisailam Project Workers and another for others, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.155, Irrigation & CAD (PW: ESTT.1) Department, dated 22-11- 2000 whereby the same was totally varied with. Challenging the said G.O, it was contended on behalf of the respondents Union-the writ petitioners that once the benefit is extended in pursuance of a settlement arrived under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the same is in force all along, it could not possibly be withdrawn or meddled with in any manner whatsoever nature, more so, when the reasons given in support for falling back from the said promise is totally unsustainable and baseless. These contentions were sought to be repelled on behalf of the appellants before the learned Single Judge in trying to support the impugned G.O.Ms.No.155, Irrigation & CAD (PW: ESTT.1) Department, dated 22-11- 2000 mainly on the very same reasoning as shown therein, and further also pointing out that if at all the respondents-writ petitioners are aggrieved against the impugned orders and amounting to any such alleged alteration of service conditions under Section 9-A of the Act, it is always open for them to avail the legal remedies available under law, but not to assail the same in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge by taking into consideration all these submissions from both sides allowed the writ petition and set aside the said G.O.Ms.No.155, Irrigation & CAD (PW: ESTT.1) Department, dated 22-11- 2000. While so, it was specifically found by the learned Single Judge that the reasons as shown in support of the withdrawal in the impugned action are totally misconceived and unsustainable. Further, such action on the part of the respondents is retrogative step and oppressive attitude adopted against the NMR workers which is nothing but unfair level of practice. Further, having regard to the facts and circumstance, there is no necessity of rejecting the petitioners to workout their remedies before the machinery provided under the Act. That apart, the learned Single Judge placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in THE K.C.P.LTD V. THE PRESIDING OFFICER & OFFICER & ORS [1], which virtually concerned with the very same facts and circumstances and coming heavily against such decisions, which amounts to violation of binding settlement and attracts the penal provision under Section 29 of the I.D. Act. Aggrieved thereby the present appeal has been filed by the appellants virtually on the very same grounds as raised before the learned Single Judge in support of the impugned G.O and no other ground has been urged nor any other aspect is pointed out to come to a different conclusion or approach to vary with either the finding given by the learned Single Judge or the reasons given in support. We have perused the entire pleadings from both sides and also the impugned proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.155, Irrigation & CAD (PW: ESTT.1) Department, dated 22-11-2000. We are in agreement in its entirety with the approach and the reasons given by the learned Single Judge, especially, to say that there being settlement under Section 18 (1) of the said Act, which is a conclusive piece and could not be meddled with in any manner as now being sought to be done. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we do not find merits in the above appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ (B PRAKASH RAO,J) ________________ (G.CHANDRAIAH,J) DATE:14-03-2011 GRK [1] 1997 (1) LLJ 308