The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' applies to daily wage employees who perform the same duties as permanent employees, and employers are required to frame Standing Orders as per the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act.

1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who claim to be working as 'Ward Boys' on daily wages in S. M. S. Hospital Jaipur. The petitioners have prayed that (i) they may be made permanent on the post of Ward Boy (Class IV employee) and be provided the regular pay-scale of the post on which they are working as is given to such other permanent employees of the same cadre and (ii) that the respondents should frame Standing Orders as are provisions of Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act or under the Service Rules which are framed for other employees of the Hospital/Department and should be governed in accordance with such Standing Orders/Rules.

2. It is submitted by Mr. Mahendra Shah learned counsel that petitioners No. 1 and 2 have been appointed verbally as Ward Boys (Class IV employees) on March 10 1988 and June 1 1988 respectively on daily wage basis at the rate of Rs. 14/- per day. There are other permanent Ward Boys in S. M. S. Hospital Jaipur who are also working under the control of respondent No. 3 who is their appointing authority. It is contended that there is no difference in the nature of duties performed by Ward Boys who are appointed in substantive capacity and the petitioners are performing similar jobs and functions. Therefore they are entitled to be governed by the principle of ' equal pay for equal work" and should be paid the regular pay-scale of Ward Boys i. e. Rs. 700-940 as is paid to those who are working permanently on the post of Ward Boys. It is also contended that petitioners be made regular on the posts of Ward Boys. It is also pointed out that S. M. S. Hospital and Medical College falls within the ambit of "industry" as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the petitioners who are Class IV employees are covered under the definition of "workman" under Section 2(8) of the ID Act. Therefore they are entitled to be given benefits as are provided to the workmen under the relevant statutory provisions particularly in respect of their retrenchment of services from the employment.

3. It is also contended by the learned counsel that keeping of persons in any temporary capacity on daily wages for long time without regularisation of their services and not paying them the regular pay-scale falls under the definition of unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra) read with Chapter V of the ID Act and the same is prohibited by mandatory provisions of Chapter V-C of the Act in particular Section 25-T and Section 25 V of the said Act since they are performing similar duties as Ward Boys (Class IV employees). It is also contended that nature of their duties and job assigned to them is similar in all respects to the one performed by those on the post of permanent Ward Boys. Thus this practice is discriminatory and arbitrary & is violative of Articles 14,16 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the respondents are bound by law to frame the Service Code for the employment by virtue of mandatory provisions of Section 3 of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act. 1946 which casts mandatory obligations on the respondents to frame the Code stipulating the State Service Conditions of its employees even while working on daily wages/ work charged basis. It is further contended that merely because alternate remedy exists by way of approaching Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court under the I Act it cannot be said that when there is violation of Articles 14,16 and 39(d) of the Act (sic Constitution of India) the petitioners cannot approach this Court for quick redress of their grievances when there is hardly any dispute regarding the facts.

4. It is contended by Mr. Ashok Parihar,. learned Additional Government Advocate that in the return filed on behalf of the respondents it has not been admitted that the petitioners are working as Ward Boys. but it has been stated that they are working as caus