The main legal point established in the judgment is that 'equal pay for equal work' is not a principle to be applied in an abstract and that it depends on various circumstances such as source of recruitment, educational qualification, mode of appointment, and experience.

Mukta Gupta, J.

1. By the present petition, the Petitioner seeks only one relief i.e. setting aside of the award dated 9th July, 1996 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal to the extent it directs that the employees/workmen be paid minimum pay plus DA in the pay scale of regular employee without any increment in a comparable post with effect from the date of reference. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the learned Tribunal erred in applying the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The work done by permanent malis is different from the work done by workmen/Respondents who are muster roll mazdoors. The work done by the regular malis is of skilled nature. All garden operation including maintenance and care of permanent feature of gardens such as lawns, shrubs, hedges and trees are to be handled by permanent malis. They know about the different types of plants and identification of plants and trees in different seasons. They are also concerned with the transplantation of plants which is in the nature of a technical work. On the other hand, the muster roll mazdoors do the work of unskilled nature which includes trenching, digging of holes, rough dressing, clearing of out-growth in leaves and byelanes etc., and in a way the muster roll workers act as helpers to the regular malis. It is further contended that despite the fact that the Petitioner had laid detailed evidence and produced adequate material before the learned Tribunal demonstrating that the work done by members of Respondent No.1 was substantially different from the work being done by the regular/permanent malis, the learned Tribunal has in its award not dealt with the said affidavits and evidence. Therefore, the impugned award fails to take into consideration relevant material and is thus liable to be set aside.

2. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 contends that both the categories of workers have to perform same duties of malis and there is no difference between the work and duties being performed by the regular malis and casual malis. Reliance is placed on the statement of MW5 Shri V.P. Singh who has nowhere stated that there is a difference between the work and duties of the permanent malis and the muster roll malis. It is further contended that MW5 also admitted that working hours of muster roll workers and regular workers are the same and the muster roll workers are regularized against the permanent available posts on the basis of their seniority and as such it cannot be said that there is difference between two categories. Hence, the claim of the Respondents before the learned Tribunal is rightly decided in their favour and there is no illegality in the impugned award. Reliance is placed on Surinder Singh and another v. The Engineer in Chief, C.P.W.D. and others, A.T.R. 1986 S.C. 76, Shri Naider and another v. Delhi Administration and Another (Writ Petition No.9609-10/1983 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29th September, 1988), Vijay Pal Sharma and Ors. v. Delhi Administration and Others (I.A. No.2 in Writ Petition No.818 of 1989 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12th March, 1990), Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Gauri Shankar and Others, (1999) 81 DLT 535, MCD v. Om Prakash and others (WP(C) No.788/2003 dismissed by this Court on 17th January, 2005) and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jagdish Kumar (WP(C) No.3842/2000 decided by this Court on 17th October, 2008).

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

4. Briefly the facts giving rise to the instant petition are that vide notification No. F.24(1811)/86-Lab-88 dated 2nd January, 1986 an industrial dispute was referred by Secretary (Labour), Delhi Admin(GNCT of Delhi) to the learned Industrial Tribunal under the terms of reference, "Whether the workmen as shown in Annexure I, II and III are entitled to be employed on permanent basis and, if so, from which date and what directio