( 1 ) THE petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not paying equal pay for equal work to the petitioners on par with the General Mazdoor Category -I employees from the date of their initial appointment as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to the respondent to pay equal pay for equal work on par with the General Mazdoor Category -1 employees from the date of their initial appointment.

( 2 ) THIS relief sought by the petitioners is essentially grounded on the judgment of this Court in Thalia Venkati and others v. the Singareni Colleries Limited, Ramagundam, in Writ Petition No. 2170 of 1987 and batch. This Court while disposing of those writ petitions vide its order dated 2-2-1990 directed the respondent-Management to pay the petitioners therein the wages at the rate of the minimum scale of pay admissible to General Mazdoor Category-I employees from the date of filing of the writ petitions and to frame a scheme prescribing the percentage in each recruitment quota for absorption of casual labourers. In those writ petitions, the petitioners therein had sought a declaration that the action of the respondent company in not regularising their services and not treating them on par with the General Mazdoor Category-I employees as arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondent Company to regularise the services of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment and to treat them on par with the General Mazdoor Category-I employees and to pay all benefits.

( 3 ) THE Management of the respondent company, in response to Rule Nisi, has filed a detailed counter contesting the claim of the petitioners. In the counter, in para 5, it is stated that in pursuance of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 2170/87 and batch dated 2-2-1990, a scheme was evolved by the Company under which services of certain categories of employees were absorbed on regular basis by the Management in pursuance of a settlement entered into between the parties under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the year 1991. It is contended in the counter that the petitioners did not raise any demand relating to their entitlement to receive wages in terms of pay scale with effect from the date of their initial entry into service, and therefore the petitioners are bound by the settlement, and it is not open to the petitioners to raise a dispute on the ground that prior to the settlement or prior to the date when it was implemented, they ought to have been paid wages on the basis of "equal pay for equal work" principle. It is also contended by the Management in the counter that writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine on the ground of laches because if the petitioners had any grievance, they ought to have put forth that grievance in time and there is inordinate delay in approaching this Court.

( 4 ) THERE is no controversy between the parties that the petitioners in this writ petition and the petitioners in writ petition Nos. 2170/ 87 and batch are similarly circumstanced in every respect in the sense that they made entries into service of the respondent Company as casual labourers. If the petitioners had joined the petitioners in writ petition Nos. 2170/87 and batch, they would have got the same reliefs as granted by this Court in those writ petitions. No doubt, the petitioners did not air their grievance along with their similarly circumstanced colleagues in the year 1987. The present writ petition was presented before this Court on 27-12-1995. A settlement was arrived at between the parties as pointed out in the counter in the year 1991. There was delay in approaching this Court. But the question which rails for consideration is whether only on the ground that the petitioners have approached this Court after