- (1.) I.A. No. 361 of 2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for condonation of delay.
(2.) IN view of the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A. No. 361 of 2011 is allowed. L.P.A. No. 27 of 2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties on the merit of the case. Learned counsel for the appellant-employer submitted that the employees-petitioners were not entitled to the revised pay-scales for lawful reason whereas learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were entitled to benefit of the revised pay-scales.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that though the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant-employer to take a decision on the petitioners' claim for arrears of salary but directed the appellant to pay the same to the employees which may be interpreted to mean that in any case the appellant-employer is required to take a decision in favour of the writ petitioners- respondents and decide only quantum of arrears of salary. Learned counsel for the appellant has apprehension that because of the subsequent order that " but also to reassess the grant of gratuity on the basis of revised pay-scales and pay the same including the difference of gratuity" also indicate that by this, the learned Single Judge has virtually directed that the petitioners' pay-scales is required to be revised and thereafter to pay gratuity amount according to revised pay-scales.;