IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.15090 of 2005 Between: M. Ramana Babu S/o M.V.S. Narayana, R/o Allinagaram (post), Via, Murapaka Srikakulam District ..... PETITIONER AND M/s. Sponge Iron India Ltd., rep by its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Regd. Office: Khanij Bhavan, 6th Floor, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the impugned latter, dated 04-02-2005, of the respondent Corporation in denying the benefits and arrears arising out of wage revision, to the petitioner, as bad, illegal, unjust, unfair, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, as also violative of the principles of natural justice, and consequently, direct the respondent corporation to pay the monetary benefits including arrears of wages on pay fixation arising out of the revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1997 till the retirement on superannuation of the petitioner on 29- 06-2002, and also pay the other benefits such as incentives paid to the executive similarly placed, during the wage revision period, the arrears on account of Leave encashment, medical reimbursement, conveyance allowance and arrears on account of P.F. Gratuity etc. along with interest @ 18 % p.a from the date such arrears are due to the petitioner, and pass such other order or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.A.CHARI Counsel for the Respondent: MR.M.SRIKANTH The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.15090 OF 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the letter, dated 04.02.2005, of the respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. It appears, the petitioner joined the service of the respondent company on 14.11.1979 as Assistant Engineer, rendered service for more than twenty two years and retired from service on 29.06.2002, as Senior Executive, on attaining the age of superannuation. While so, after his retirement, on 16.08.2002, revision of wages was introduced in the company with effect from 01.01.1997. The petitioner contends that though he retired from the service of the company, since he was on the rolls of the company as on 01.01.1997, he is entitled to the benefit of wage revision and, as such, he is liable to be paid the arrears of revised wages. The petitioner is stated to have approached the authorities seeking payment of such arrears. However, ultimately, through the impugned letter dated 04.02.2005, he was informed by the respondent company that wage revision was on the basis of an agreement between the Union of Workmen and the management and, so far as the Executive Officers are concerned, the same policy decision was applicable, to keep parity between the two sets of employees, and, therefore, wage revision was restricted to those employees who were actually on the rolls of the company as on 16.08.2002. It was further informed that, since the petitioner retired from the service of the company prior to 16.08.2002 and was not on the rolls of the company as on 16.08.2002, the benefit of wage revision cannot be extended to him and, as such, arrears as requested by him could not be paid. May be there was some agreement between the Union of workmen and the management. But, the petitioner retired from service in the capacity of Executive Officer and, absolutely, there was no agreement between the Union of the Executive Officers and the management. Though it is stated that the agreement entered into between the Union of workmen and the management is equally applicable to the Executive Officers, the same cannot be accepted. Any understanding or settlement between the Union of Workmen and the management cannot be made applicable to the Executive Officers. Executive Officers have to be dealt with separately. In this case, there was no decision taken by the Union of Executive Officers or any other authority to the effect that the agreement entered into between the Union of workmen and the management is binding on the Executive Officers. Thus, the contention of the management that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of wage revision, which was introduced on 16.08.2002 with effect from 01.01.1997, on the ground that he retired from service prior to 16.08.2002 and was not on the rolls of the company as on 16.08.2002, cannot be countenanced. Here, it is to be remembered that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. It is not that he retired from service voluntarily and was conferred with certain additional benefits. Thus, in my opinion, the respondent could not have denied him the benefit of revised wages for about 5½ years, and this approach made by the respondent is pedantic, unreasonable and liable to be deprecated. For the above reasons, the impugned letter is liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. The respondent is directed to extend the benefit of wage revision, which was introduced on 16.08.2002 with effect from 01.01.1997, to the petitioner and shall pay the arrears as well as the other benefits accrued thereunder, for the period from 01.01.1997 till the date of his retirement from service, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 29th April, 2008. IBL To 1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, M/s. Sponge Iron India Ltd., Regd. Office, Khanij Bhavan, 6th Floor, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 2. Two CD Copies