HIMA KOHLI, J.

( 1 ) BY this petition the petitioner seeks to assail the award dated 20th July, 2006, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, whereunder it was held that the petitioner workman (claimant therein) was not entitled to any relief as claimed by him and both the issues, as framed therein, were decided in favour of the respondent management.

( 2 ) A brief narration of the facts is necessary for disposal of the petition. The petitioner workman was in employment with the respondent management as a daily wager since 20th March, 1981 and was working as a Beldar. He was paid wages for the same from 20th March, 1981 to 5th January, 1983. With effect from 6th January, 1983, the petitioner was made a work charged Beldar and thereafter, w. e. f. 19th March, 1991 he was assigned duties of an LDC with the respondent management. On the above basis , the petitioner claimed that he be paid wages in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 which is applicable for LDC/typist which is a Class-C post, instead of Rs. 750-940 which is the prescribed pay scale for Class-D employees. This claim was rejected by the respondent management. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner workman served a demand notice dated 11th March, 1995, on the respondent management. On 13th March, 1995, the petitioner workman filed a statement of claim before the Labour Commissioner, and on failure of the conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal on 3rd July, 1997. The terms of reference as indicated in the schedule are reproduced as below: schedule terms OF REFERENCE "whether the demand of Shri Rajbir for regularization of his services as Beldar w. e. f. 20. 01. 81 is justified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect. "

( 3 ) A Corrigendum was issued in 2004 with the following following terms of reference: "whether the management assigned the duties of L. D. C. to Sh. Rajbir w. e. f. 19. 03. 01 and if so whether his services should be regularized as such in the proper pay scale alongwith consequential benefits and if so what directions are necessary in this respect. "

( 4 ) VIDE its award dated 20th July, 2006, the Industrial Tribunal decided both the issues as mentioned above, against the petitioner workman and it is this award that the petitioner workman seeks to assail by way of the present writ petition.

( 5 ) DURING the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner workman submitted that the impugned award is perverse as the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the petitioner has been denied his fundamental right of "equal pay for equal work". It was stated that though the petitioner was working as an L. D. C since 19th March, 1991, yet he was being paid at the pay scale of Class-D employee instead of being paid wages payable to LDCs who are class-C employees. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Learned Presiding officer failed to appreciate the evidence on record in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner workman had never worked as an LDC. Reliance in this respect was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Chiranjit singh and Others reported as (2006) 9 SCC 321.

( 6 ) THE second contention raised by the petitioner workman was that he was denied proper classification by grade/regularization. It was submitted that the petitioner workman having worked at the post of an LDC for 16 years i. e. more than 10 years, he is entitled to be regularized at the said post, following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, reported as (2006) 4 SCC 1.

( 7 ) IT was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if there are Recruitment Rules for the post of LDCs, even according to the said rules, the petitioner workman is entitled to be regularized on the post of LDC. In this regard it was stated that the recruitment Rules were made in the year 1988 and since