1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.321 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4336 OF 2009 Mr.J.B. Pagar & Others .. Appellants Vs. The General Manager, Bharat Electronics Ltd & Anr. .. Respondents Ms.Gayatri Singh i/b Ms.Seema Chopda for the appellant Ms.Meena Doshi for the respondents CORAM : J. N. Patel, Acting C.J., B.R.Gavai, J. DATE : February 05, 2010 P.C. : 1. The appellants challenge the order dt.20.08.09 passed by the learned single Judge of this court thereby dismissing the writ petition filed by the present appellants challenging the award passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai dt.4.12.08. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal as well as the learned single Judge of this court have failed to take into consideration that the petitioners were 2 similarly situated with other employees who were granted higher pay grade i.e. Wage Group IV. It is submitted that it is a settled principle of law that there should be equal pay for equal work. The learned counsel therefore submits that the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal so also the learned single Judge have erred in answering the reference in the negative and dismissing the petition. 3. The learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal on the basis of evidence that was led before it on behalf of the parties has found that even from the evidence which was led on behalf of the appellants, the appellants had failed to establish the case that there was any discrimination. On the contrary, on the basis of the evidence which was led on behalf of the respondent i.e. Shri Bhagavatula Hanumantha Rao, it was found that the higher pay scale were granted to the persons who were possessing better qualifications, more experience and were senior to the group represented by the appellants. It was also found, on the basis of evidence led on behalf of the appellant itself i.e. Shri J. B. Pagar, that objection at any point of time was not raised regarding higher pay scale. It was further, found that not only Shri J. B. Pagar and others had accepted their placement in Wage Group­IV in 1999 without any demur. It was further found that though it was claimed by the appellants that the said acceptance was under protest, nothing was placed on record, to substantiate the same. 4. While examining the correctness of the award, the learned single Judge 3 could not have interfered with the same, unless it was found that the findings of the learned Tribunal were either perverse or impossible. 5. On apprehension of the material placed before the court the learned single Judge has found that the finding recorded by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal warrants no interference. 6. We do not find any error in the view taken by the learned single Judge to warrant interference. Hence, appeal is dismissed. (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (B.R.GAVAI, J)