HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH,J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the employer- Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the FCI), against the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), dated 6.3.2013 passed in LCA Case No. 183 of 2009 arising from an application filed by the workman Gyan Prakash Nigam under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), claiming computation and payment of monetary benefits Rs. 55,343/- with interest. The Tribunal has allowed that application and directed payment of aforesaid amount of Rs. 55,343/-. Further, in the event of failure on part of FCI to pay the aforesaid amount within one month from the date of the award, a direction has been issued to pay that amount with interest at the rate of 12%. Briefly, undisputed facts giving rise to the present petition are; on 15.6.1972, Gyan Prakash Nigam respondent workmen (hereinafter referred to as the workman) was appointed by FCI on the post of Assistant Grade-III (Ministerial). He was promoted on 8.7.1976 as Assistant Grade-II (Ministerial). FCI introduced a scheme to grant two special increments in the form of personal pay to its employees, to acquire higher professional qualifications like LL.B etc. mentioned in circular No. 40 of 1985 dated 29.7.1985 with further stipulation that the two special increments so granted would be merged in the basic pay to be computed at the time of promotion to the next higher grade. It was made effective w.e.f. 1.4.1984. A copy of the said circular No. 40 of 1985 dated 29.7.1985 has been annexed with the writ petition. Admittedly LL.B course did qualify under the aforesaid scheme for grant of twin benefits described above. For ready reference the clause no.5 of the aforesaid circular providing for the incentive is quoted herein below:- "5. Incentive Admissible - Employees fulfilling the eligibility conditions referred to above would only be entitled to the benefits under the scheme. The incentives offered under this scheme would be in the form of two special increments a 'personal pay' to be merged in pay at the time of promotion to the next higher grade. This incentive would be admissible only on written orders by the competent authority on merit of each case. The incentive in the form of two increments would be granted starting from first day of the following month when the employee concerned has been declared to have passed the course or the date of enforcement of the scheme which ever is later." (emphasis supplied) There is no dispute to the fact that the workman acquired special qualification of LL.B or as to written order being issued to grant two special increments under the aforesaid circular No. 40 of 1985, while he continued to work as Assistant Grade-II (Ministerial). It is also not disputed that w.e.f. 1.9.2001, the workman was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-I in the pay-scale 5760-12-11140. At that time, a question arose as to implementation of second part of the incentive scheme where under at the time of promotion to the next higher grade, the two special increments granted by way of 'personal pay' were to be merged in the workman's pay on the higher/promotional post. The workman claimed, the employer wrongly computed his due wages by not merging the two special increments earned by him upon acquiring higher professional qualification and it thus did not pay to him his wages at the higher rate to which he was entitled under Circular no. 40 of 1985 dated 29.7.1985. The employer on its part, applied circular No. 58 of 1987, dated 24.8.1987 issued by one P.K. Murugan, Deputy Manger (EP) for Manager Personnel (P and IR), FCI Headquarter Barahkhamba Road, New Delhi. Thus the monetary benefit arising upon merger of two special increments of Rs. 240/- was not included in the basic pay of the workman upon his promotion to Assistant Grade-I. It was not paid over. The aforesaid circular letter No. 58 of 1987 has also been annexed to the writ petition. In relevant part, it reads :- "It is hereby clarified for the benefit and guidance of all concerned that the special increment granted to officials for acquiring professional qualifications shall be treated only as personal pay to an official till his promotion to the next higher grade. At the time of promotion of the official to the next higher grade and pay fixation in the promoted post, the special increment granted to officials for acquiring professional qualifications shall be treated only as personal pay to an official till his promotion to the next higher grade and pay fixation in the promoted post, the special increment/personal pay will not repeat not be added to the basic pay drawn by the official in the lower post. On the other hand, the fixation of pay under Regulation 82 of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 shall be done only with reference to the basic pay drawn by the official in the lower post and while giving such fixation in the higher post, the personal pay already drawn by the officials shall get absorbed. If the pay fixed at the promoted post happens to be less than the pay at the lower post plus personal pay drawn by the official, then the differential amount will continue to be paid to the official at personal pay till it gets absorbed in the pay in due course." Plainly, the two Circulars cannot be reconciled. If the later Circular is found to be valid and enforceable, the workman cannot claim entitlement to merger of two special increments - granted to him on the post of Assistant Grade-II (Ministerial), for the purpose of computation of his basic pay on the post of Assistant Grade-I. The Tribunal has held that the subsequent circular no. 58 of 1987 does not have statutory or legal force and therefore, the action of the management in not granting two special increments at the time of promotion of the workman to Assistant Grade-I and not fixing his pay is against circular issued by the Board of Directors. Accordingly, it allowed the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner corporation has submitted, though the workman may have been entitled to the benefit as claimed prior to issuance of Circular No. 58 of 1987, however, as he was promoted much after issuance of this second Circular, he lost his entitlement thereunder. Alternatively, he submits, upon issuance of the second Circular, the claim made by the workman became disputed, hence, it could not be allowed under section 33 C (2) of the Act, and the proper course was to seek adjudication of this question upon a reference under the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Singh Vs. Presiding Officer reported in AIR 1988 SC 1618. It has also been submitted that even otherwise in view of the subsequent Circular no. 58 of 1987, the workman was not entitled to merger/inclusion of the two special increments in his basic pay upon his promotion to the grade of Assistant Grade-I. On the other hand, the workman who has appeared in person, noticeably in proper attire, befitting a court appearance, submits, the communication referred by the FCI as second Circular No. 58 of 1987 is void-ab-initio and therefore not enforceable. In any case it could not over ride the Circular No. 40 of 1985 in as much as it was issued under authority of a resolution of the Board of Directors of the FCI whereas the later communication / Circular was not. According to him, the later communication / Circular having been issued by an officer of the FCI, subordinate to the Board of Directors of FCI, without authority of the Board of Directors of FCI, it could not seek to over ride the Board decision. It has no legal consequence and therefore it was rightly ignored by the Tribunal. He relies on the judgment the Supreme Court in the case of The Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. P.S. Rajagopalan etc reported in AIR 1964 SC 743 to submit that even if right to benefit is disputed by the employer, yet, the Labour Court would have jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) to determine whether workman has right to receive benefit. First, it is seen, while Circular No. 40 of 1985 dated 29.7.1985 was issued under authority of the Board of Directors of the FCI i.e. that Circular introduced the Scheme of incentive as approved by the Board of Directors of the FCI in its board meeting held on 19.6.1985, the later communication / Circular No. 58 of 1987 dated 24.8.1987 does not claim authority under an order or direction issued by or under the authority of the Board of Directors of the Food Corporation of India, a statutory Corporation. It has also not been shown to have been ratified or adopted, in any manner, by the Board of Directors of the FCI, on any later date. Also, it has not been shown that officer issuing communication / Circular No. 58 of 1987, dated 24.8.1987 had any authority to issue the said circular, to over ride the circular issued by the Board of Directors of FCI dated 29.7.1985 (being Board Circular No. 40 of 1985). In so far as it restricts the incentive of acquiring additional qualification to one/first stage only i.e. to grant two special increments on the lower grade but denies the effect of the same at the next higher grade, by refusing merger of the same in the basic pay of the workman, the same clearly over ride seeks to Circular No. 40 of 1985 dated 29.7.1985. In this regard, it may be noted, Circular no. 40 of 1985, clearly discloses its authority to 162nd meeting of the Board of Directors held on 19.6.1985 whereas the circular no. 58 of 1987 only states the same had been issued with the concurrence of the Finance Wing of the Headquarter of FCI. Thus, factually it is clear, the two circulars have different origin. While Circular No. 40 of 1985 dated 29.7.1985 was an act performed under authority of the Board of Directors itself as it had been issued in pursuance of the resolution dated 19.6.1985 adopted at the 162nd meeting of the Board of Directors of FCI, the subsequent communication / Circular No. 58 of 1987 is merely a creation of the 'finance wing' being the Finance Department of FCI . It does not trace its origin to decision of the Board of Directors of the FCI. Then, it is to be seen whether difference in origin/source of power of the two circulars would give rise to any difference in their respective status and enforceability. At the relevant time, by virtue of section 291 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Board of Directors of a company including the FCI was entitled to exercise all such powers and to do all such acts and things as the company was authorized to exercise and do. Therefore in any corporation, the decision of the Board of Directors is supreme, and all other actions, by all other authorities or Officers of that corporation, be it of the Finance or other wing or department and all other officers and employees subordinate to the Board of Directors must conform to decisions of the Board of Directors. There is no case against legality of Circular No. 40 of 1985 by the Board of Directors of FCI. The limited aspect to be examined is whether any action taken by and authority or officer subordinate to the Board of Directors of the FCI, can exist or prevail contrary to resolution adopted by such Board of Directors and whether it would be enforceable to any extent. It is noted Circular No. 58 of 1987 after taking note of the two earlier circulars numbers 40 of 1985 dated 29.7.1985 and circular no. 72 of 1986 dated 14.11.1986 provides for a new scheme. It first seeks to continue the benefit of two special increments upon acquiring additional qualification such as LL.B. Then, it withdraws the benefit of merger of the two increments in the basic pay of such employee at the time of his promotion. Then, it seeks to create an exception to the withdrawal so made, as it provides for merger of personal pay received by an employee under the Regulations, to continue to be paid on the promotional post. In view of the undisputed fact, Circular No. 40 of 1985 had been issued under authority of Board of Directors as exercised at the 162nd meeting of the Board of Director of Food Corporation of India, held on 19.6.1985 a copy of which has been annexed with the writ petition, there is no doubt either to its contents or the fact that the said circular came to be issued under authority of the Board of Director as above described. The fact that Circular No. 40 of 1985 dated 29.7.1985 was issued under authority of the Board of Directors, no other authority could either amend, modify or withdraw it. Consequently, during currency of that Circular, the same was binding on all authorities who had no liberty to, independently, dither or depart from it. The Finance or other departments of the FCI were bound to implement and thus give full effect to that Circular. They had no discretion to not do so or to do it differently. If there were any doubts or ambiguities about the same the only authority to be approached and that could act on the same was the Board of Directors of the FCI and no other. Also, it has not been shown or claimed that the Board of Directors of FCI ever ratified the decision of the Finance wing of FCI contained in communication / Circular No. 58 of 1987. As such it never gained life. It was still born or nullity. It therefore did not give rise to any legal or other consequence to dilute or modify the scheme propounded by Circular No. 40 of 1985, discussed above. Thus, the incentive scheme providing for incentive at two stages - one at the stage/post on which the eligible employee acquires the higher eligible qualification and the second, upon being promoted of next higher grade as provided by Circular No. 40 of 1985 continued to be available to the workman despite issuance Circular No. 58 of 1987 by the Finance wing of FCI. The workman having admittedly earned eligibility to and also having been granted two special increments upon his acquiring the additional professional qualification of LL.B., he became entitled to that benefit being merged in his basic pay on the next higher grade, upon his promotion. Circular No. 58 of 1987 being nullity, it did not give rise to dispute as to entitlement of the the workman. Therefore, the Tribunal has made no mistake in ignoring the same and giving full effect to Circular No. 40 of 1985 issued under authority of the board of Directors of the Corporation. Therefore, computation of benefit as claimed by the workman did not involve any dispute. The entitlement as claimed arose in favour of the workmen in view of admission by the employer that the workman had acquired eligible qualification under the Circular No. 40 of 1985 and also in view of the fact that undisputedly as a consequence of the workman acquiring the eligible qualification he was allowed two special increments on his last post held prior to his promotion. In absence of any dispute as to these aspects, the Tribunal rightly proceeded under section 33 C (2) of the Act. In this regard it is also noted that the similar dispute had already been decided in the matter Munendra Kumar Srivastava which order has also been annexed with the writ petition. The Tribunal had in that case also given benefit to the workman of Circular No. 40 of 1985 issued by the Board of Directors dated 29.07.1985 by allowing for merger of two special increments to the basic pay of the next promotional grade. Reliance placed by the workman on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. P.S. Rajagopalan etc reported in AIR 1964 SC 743 is quite apposite. In so far as the Supreme Court has held, the determination of question of computing benefits of terms of money may in some case, have to be proceeded by an inquiry into the existence of the right and such an inquiry must be held. The Supreme Court held :- "The claim under Section 33C(2) clearly postulates that the determination of the question about computing the benefit in terms of money may, in some cases, have to be preceded by an enquiry into the existence of the right and such an enquiry must be held to be incidental to the main determination which has been assigned to the Labour Court by sub-sec. (2)." On the other hand reliance placed by the petitioner in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India (supra) is misplaced. In that case, the workman was admittedly working as a Fitter Grade C. He claimed to be performing the same work as was being performed by Fitter Grade B. He, therefore, claimed that he be paid the same wages as were being paid to Fitter Grade B. It is in that context that the Supreme Court negatived the claim raised by the workman and held that such a claim for higher wages could only be allowed only after adjudication of the case set up by the workman i.e. his claim of having performed the same work as that of a Fitter Grade B. In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the nature of work performed or even as to the entitlement under the original Circular No. 40 of 1985. If the subsequent circular had not been issued, there would have been no doubt as to entitlement of the workman to merger of two special increments in his basic pay on the promotional post. Lastly, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by drawing analogy under Section 113 CPC that the matter ought to have been submitted for adjudication. Such an argument has been stated only to be rejected. In view of the fact that industrial law is governed by the provisions of the Act and U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a special law and a complete code in itself. There is no need to draw analogy from Code of Civil Procedure which is wholly inapplicable to the proceedings under the Act. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ;