Vinod Chandran, J.

The Writ Appeals have been filed by the Indian Rare Earths Ltd. (IRE) and Government of India, both of them, respondents before the learned Single Judge. The issue arose in the context of a pay revision, which was agreed to by the employer and the representative unions of the employees, by a settlement under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for brevity). The period in which the dispute arose was between 01-07-2003 to 30-06-2008. There was a specific clause in the agreement, which granted 100% neutralization of the quarterly average increase or decrease of the All India Consumer Price Index (AICPI) for persons drawing basic pay upto Rs.6,500/- and those drawing above, had 75% neutralization.

2. Clause 5(3) of the long term settlement is extracted below for ready reference:

“It is agreed that if the Government of India approves 100% D.A. neutralization irrespective of any Basic Pay to similarly placed PSU of DAE, IREL will also adopt 100% of the D.A. neutralization system subject to obtaining specific Government approval.”

3. Earlier, the Company had made a recommendation to the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), which was declined by Ext.P2 as produced in the writ petition. Ext.P2 was challenged before this Court, in which Ext.P5 judgment was passed. A learned Single Judge found that the issue, as to approval, has to be considered by the Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) and not the DAE. The DPE in Government of India considered the issue again and passed Ext.P8 order, which was challenged in the Writ Petitions before the learned Single Judge.

4. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment, observed that Ext.P5 judgment specifically set aside non-approval of 100% D.A. neutralization based on the periodicity of wage revision. It was also found that the ground of periodicity of revision, as found by the DAE; would have no application in so far as Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. (UCIL) also had periodicity of five years for pay revisions. It was presumed that this Court in Ext.P5 had taken a view that notwithstanding any policy of the DAE or the DPE, the conditions in the long term settlement and clause 5(3) thereof has binding effect on both the employer and the employee. It was hence held that, the respondents 1 and 2 were not entitled to reject the approval based on the very same reasoning contained in Ext.P2, regarding periodicity of wage revision. Clause 5(3) was noticed to find that when the Government approves 100% neutralization in any of the Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs.) under the DAE, then necessarily the appellant-Company is bound to implement the said clause subject to the specific approval from the Government. It was found that 100% neutralization, irrespective of the amount of basic pay, was allowed in UCIL, with the approval of the Government, where the periodicity of pay revision was also identically positioned at five years. The approval sought for cannot be denied on the basis of the 100% neutralization having not been adopted in the other PSU's under DAE.

5. The appellant-Company was also found to be disentitled in taking a different stand, especially, when it had made the recommendations and agreed to the conditions in a binding settlement entered into under the Act. The learned Single Judge found that one of the grounds in Ext.P8 for declining approval for 100% neutralization in the appellant-company was that it is not a similarly situated PSU when compared with UCIL. The Court took note of the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the Writ Petition that only a small portion of the workers are engaged in underground mining operation and the neutralization in the case of UCIL was approved for the entire work force. The reason based on the capital grant to the UCIL was also found to be equally unsustainable. The finding that 100% neutralization for the entire work force would cast heavy burden on the appellant-compan