Vikramajit Sen, C.J.

1. The writ petitioners who are respondents before us, were Bank Officers who had retired between 01.07.1993 and 31.10.1994. The Five Year Bipartite Settlement had by then expired on 01.11.1992. After extensive parleys a Joint Note dated 23.06.1995 was signed on the ‘Conclusion of Discussions between Indian Banks Association and the Officers’ Organisation’. Clause 7 thereof dealt with Gratuity and stipulated thus-“As the consensus reached, gratuity computed in terms of the Officers’ Service Regulations to be now amended shall be recalculated and difference paid only to such eligible officer employees who cease to be in the Bank’s service on or after 01.11.1994. No arrears on account of gratuity shall be payable to officers who ceased to be in Bank’s service prior to 01.11.1994.” The writ petitioners have successfully challenged the treatment meted out to them as they have been placed beyond the purview of the Settlement which according to them is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As per Regulation 4(1) although they were entitled to the benefits of revision of payscales, by operation of Joint Note dated 23.06.1995, they were placed beyond the ameliorative wage negotiations so far as gratuity benefits were concerned. This controversy has already received the attention of the High Court of Kerala which ruled in favour of similarly placed writ petitioners in Syndicate Bank Vs. Celine Thomas, WA.No.1584/2002 (DB). By order dated 08.08.2005 the concerned Banks were ordered to pay these ex-employees “the amount of gratuity payable based on the revised pay as entitled to them.” SLA (Civil) 3719/2006, by which that judgment had been assailed, was dismissed by the Apex Court on 22.02.2010. A somewhat piquant situation has arisen because of filing of SLP No.1975/2010 titled Central Bank of India –Vs-Sethu Madhavan. It is in respect of the very same Judgment delivered by the Kerala High Court. The said SLP has been admitted for hearing. We have come to a conclusion akin to that preferred by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. The dialectic is similar and so is our verdict.

2. The Writ Petitioners have put in atleast two decades of service with the sundry Banks in which they were employed including Canara Bank, Punjab National Bank, State Bank of Mysore, Syndicate Bank etc.,

3. Briefly stated, the facts are that a wage revision had become due in respect of all Banks on 01.11.1992 consequent upon the efflux of the five year period for which the previous Memorandum of Understanding held the filed. The unfortunate practice that seems to have evolved is that wage negotiations inevitably commence after the expiry of the life of the previous Settlement, rather than in anticipation of this event. We record this reflection for the reason that it is evident to us that had a Settlement been arrived at immediately on the expiry of the previous one, the present Writ Petitions would have become unnecessary. Due to this practice, the Settlements that are eventually arrived at between the employees and officers on the one hand and the Indian Banks Association representing several Banks on the other, perforce have retrospective effect. This is the simple reason why pay escalation as well as gratuity revisions have retroactive operation for a tranche of five years. By the time of signing of the Joint Note dated 23.06.1995, the Writ Petitioners had already retired between the period 01.07.1993 to 31.10.1994. It does not require a paranoid mind to suspect that the Unions or Associations were not as respective or assiduously loyal to the cause of the older employees as they were of officers or employees in harness. We reiterate that the wage package which had been introduced with effect from 01.11.1987 was due for its next avatar after 5 years i.e. from 01.11.1992. It is for these reasons that revised Settlement was notionally operational from 01.11.1992 and arrears of HRA was ap