Judgment

K. RAMASWAMY, J.:- The two writ petitions raise common questions of fact and ,law and accordingly they are disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are daily rated workers working in the respondent-Corporation and they are seeking relief under Art. 32 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus or other directions to regularise their services in the respective units and to pay them equal wages with initial basic pay, D.A. and other admissible allowances at par with regularly appointed employees of the respondent performing the same or similar duties. Admittedly, they have been appointed on daily wages between 1983 and 1986 and they have been working ever since. It is contended by them that despite their continuous service respondent has resorted to unfair labour practice in creating artificial break in service to deprive them of the benefit of continuous service. As they are not being paid equal wages at par with regular employees, this offends their right to equality of pay under Art. 14 and such action is contrary to the provisions of Art. 39.

3. The respondent had raised several disputed questions of fact which needed elaborate investigation. This Court by its order dated January 27, 1989, after hearing the counsel on either side, directed the Industrial Tribunal at Delhi to examine the contentions of the petitioners and the stand taken by the respondent, on all issues after providing full opportunity to the parties of hearing including leading of evidence, oral and documentary, and to make a report to the Registry of this Court within six months. Pursuant to the above direction, the Industrial Tribunal afforded reasonable opportunity to both parties. It would appear that both parties agreed that oral evidence need not be adduced (though respondent is now disputing that fact), and both the parties filed documentary evidence. The Tribunal held 12 sittings heard the counsel considered the record and submitted its report dated September 15, 1989. The respondent has filed its objections to the report.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri R. K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. The Tribunal found thus: "After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances I come to the conclusion that all the petitioners/ workmen are performing same or similar duties as are performed by the incumbents of group D posts of the DSMDC and consequently on the principle of equal pay for equal work enshrined in Art. 39(d) read with Arts, 14 and 16 of the Constitution, all these workmen petitioners are entitled to equal pay for equal work in relation to the regular employees." On the question of the nature of the work being discharged by the petitioners; it found that some of the workmen are shown to have been working with designations such as Wages Slip, Truck Loading Clerk, Attendance Keeper Clerk, Drill Man, Office Work, Stone Bricks Clerk, Fitter Survey, Pipe Fitter, Operator, Pump Operator, Creche Cheek Post Clerk, Permit Clerk etc., which go to suggest that those workmen were performing skilled or semi-skilled jobs or work of clerical nature. It, therefore, suggested that the workmen with these designations may also be equated with incumbents of group D` posts. However, it held that their scale of pay and the entitlement to the wages should be worked out In an inquiry under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It also further found that since the petitioners have been appointed way back between 1983 and 1986, they are to be regularised, first 1/3rd of them immediately in the pay scale of Rs. 196-232 or ,the corresponding revised scale with allowances; another one-third of the petitioners workmen to be regularised by April 1, 1990 and the remaining one-third to be regularised by April 1, 1991. The workmen are entitled to one increment for every two completed years of their service counted from the date of commencement of service under the Management and by i