JUDGMENT :- These writ petitions are directed against identical orders passed by the Judge, Labour Court in various applications filed by respondent no. 1 in each petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming difference of wages on the principle of "equal pay for equal work”. All respondent nos.1 in these writ petitions are employees of Government Milk Dairy at Udgir. The order challenged in Writ Petition no.2778 of 1996 was passed on 12.8.1992 and in remaining Writ Petitions the order challenged was passed on 13.1.1993.

2. In all these matters the case of all respondent nos.1 is that they have been working on daily wages applicable to unskilled labourers. They have worked with the petitioners continuously for several years. Due to continuous service within the meaning of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act of 1947") they are entitled to regular scale and regular increments. Each has given details of period for which he worked in the Government Dairy.

3. Learned Judge. Labour Court gave declaration that respondent no. 1 were entitled to difference of wages with pay scale of Rs.200 - 280 with regular Increments and dearness allowance payable thereon. He further directed in some of the petitions that from 1.1.1986, pay scale of Rs.750 - 1200 with regular increments and dearness allowance be allowed. Only such order is not passed in Writ Petition no.2780 of 1996 apparently because he left the service and joined Armed Forces.

4. Mrs. Autade and ML Tele, learned A.G.Ps. argued that in this case the daily wage workers were given regular pay scale and they are given benefit of permanency and regularisation by back door. The appointments were not on vacant post. No procedure was followed for appointment. Merely because an employee has worked for 240 days or more in a year is not sufficient to give benefit of regularisation or permanency. So orders passed by the Labour Court giving pay scale and directing the payment of difference of pay is per se illegal. It is also pointed out that interim stay was granted by this Court to the orders passed by the Labour Court.

5. Heard Mr. D. V. Tele, A.G.P. for the petitioners in writ petition no.2780 of 1996, Mrs. S. S. Autade. A.G.P. for petitioners in rest of writ petitions. Mr.P. G. Rodge, advocate for respondent no. 1 in writ petition no.2780 of 1996 and Mr. D. R. Shelke, advocate for respondent no. 1 in rest of writ petitions.

6. It is clear that in Writ Petition Nos.2565 of 1996, 2780 of 1996 and 2781 of 1996 respondent no.1 claimed to have worked as daily attendants: whereas in Writ Petition no.2564 of 1996 respondent no.1 claimed to have worked as a Pump Operator; in Writ Petition no.2779 of 1996 respondent no.1 claimed to have worked as a Fitter-Helper: and In Writ Petition 110.2778 of 1996 respondent no.1 claimed to have worked as a Cleaner.

7. In Writ Petition Nos.2565 of 1996, 2564 of 1996. 2779 of 1996 and 2781 of 1996 the only reason given by the learned Judge, Labour Court is that respondent no.1 was absorbed in service with effect from 1.7.1989 and that indicated that he had joined service and he was entitled to pay scale. In other three matters the Judge, Labour Court has come to the conclusion that respondent no.1 was in continuous service.

8. Learned A.G.P. relied upon the case of State of Haryana V s. Tilak Raj and others [(2003)6 see 123] : [2003(3) ALL MR 1148 (S.C.)] . In that case it is laid down that daily wage workers hold no post. A scale of pay being attached to a definite post, daily workers are not entitled to claim equal pay for equal work on parity with the regular employees. However, they are entitled to minimum wages as prescribed by the State Government. There is no dispute that all respondent no. 1 were getting daily wages. The ratio cited clearly covers the dispute raised in this petition and it is abundantly clear that merely because a daily wage worker has worked for 240 days

Click Here to Read the rest of this document