wp1136.21.doc 9. Mr.Sanjay Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that considerable time has passed and inspite of the same Respondent No.1 which is appropriate Government failed to take any steps. He therefore submitted that it is necessary to refer demands mentioned in FOC Report to the learned Industrial Court. However, Mr.Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel fairly pointed out the observations in the minutes of conciliation proceedings recorded on 12/01/2020 regarding the issue of privatisation/disinvestment of BPCL wherein it is observed that as the matter involves policy decision it was outside purview of conciliation and hence not taken up for conciliation. He therefore submitted that the Petitioners shall take up the issue regarding privatisation by approaching appropriate Forum and the same may not be referred to the learned Industrial Court. He submitted that basically three issues i.e. regarding clause 1(f) of the Memorandum of Agreement, 95% D.A. neutralisation and 12% fitment and pay scale maxima of Rs.1,36,000/- for Grade 9 be referred to the learned Industrial Court. He further submitted that Respondent No.3 be directed to allow the Petitioners to accept the terms of settlement given to other workers, without prejudice to the Petitioners’ demands and their rights to litigate their demands before the learned Industrial Court. As far as contention that pending dispute before the learned Industrial Tribunal, benefits of terms of settlement given to other workers be provided to the members of the Petitioners. Mr.Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel relied on the following judgments :-
