1. These petitions are heard and disposed of together, in view of the issue raised being the same.

2. The brief facts are as follows:

The petitioners were erstwhile employees of the respondent – Bank and had retired from the service of the bank under a Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme during the year 2003. Thereafter, salary revision was effected for officer employees of the Bank with retrospective effect from 1st November 2002. While paying the revised salary and pensionary benefits to the petitioner, the payment of differential ex-gratia was denied. The present petitions, therefore, are in respect of the same.

3. The learned Senior Advocate Shri P.S. Rajagopal appearing for the counsel for the petitioners in two of the petitions, would contend that the petitioners were officer employees of the Bank. Their service conditions were governed by the Corporation Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Service Regulations’ for brevity) and the Corporation Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Pension Regulations’ for brevity). He would point out that the word ‘salary’ is defined under Regulation 3(m) of the Service Regulations, to mean the aggregate of pay and Dearness Allowance. The word ‘pay’ is defined under Regulation 3(1) to mean basic pay, stagnation increment, professional qualification pay, increment component of fixed personal pay and the officiating allowance. Regulation 4 lays down the grades and scales of pay. Though the service conditions are prescribed in these statutory regulations, amendments thereto have always been a product of bilateral negotiations. At the industry level, salary revision is negotiated between the Indian Banks’ Association as authorized by managements of the Banks, including the Trade Unions of Officer employees working in the Banking industry. Salary revisions are therefore arrived at by settlement between the parties and negotiated settlements are thereafter incorporated into the Regulations by way of amendment. Since the officer employees are not governed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the settlements reached between the management and the unions are labeled as “Joint Notes” instead of settlements.

4. The Board of Directors of the respondent – Bank had as on 17.8.2002 approved a Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme called the Corporation Bank Officer Employees’ Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme’ for brevity) and notified the same by Circular dated 3.12.2002. The petitioners had all completed 25 years of service and were 50 years of age as on the relevant date stipulated under the Scheme namely, 1st April 2002. They were all eligible under the scheme as they met the required conditions. They had sought for and were granted voluntary retirement and they were duly relieved from service of the Bank during the year 2003.

5. It transpires that the Indian Banks Association and the negotiating Trade Unions of officer employees had signed a Joint Note dated 14.11.1999 whereby salary revision was agreed upon from 1.11.1997 to be operational for a period of five years and the settlement expired on 31.10.2002. The next salary revision was thus due from 1.11.2002. Therefore, negotiations were on from October 2002 and were in progress when the petitioners retired from the services of the Bank on voluntary retirement. Ultimately, the negotiations had resulted in the signing of Joint Note between the managements of the banks and the recognized officers Trade Union on 2nd June 2005. Under the settlement, pay, allowances, salary and emoluments payable to the officers, including the petitioners came to be revised with retrospective effect from 1.11.2002. The arrears of salary and allowances were disbursed to all, pending formal amendment to the Service Regulations and the same was, however, implemented by a Circular dated 30.6.2005.

6. Though the