The principle of equal pay for equal work, as derived from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, can be applied to cases where employees perform identical work under the same employer but receive different scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification.

1. - By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of the Labour Court dated 20th January, 1986, whereby the Labour Court entertained a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, for computation of wages on the ground that Fateh Chand, respondent No. 1 had worked as Line Man-II, though he vas appointed as casual helper. The principle of equal wages for equal work is involved in the case.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 was appointed as casual helper on 8th October, 1979. Respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Judge, Labour Court for computation of wages claiming Rs. 17,215/-. The case of respondent No. 1 is that, though, he was appointed on the post of Helper, but actually he worked as Line Man-II and as such, be is entitled to the emoluments of Line Man-II. Before the judge, Labour Court, the employee (res. No. 1) filed his own affidavit in support of his claim. On behalf of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, the affidavits of Radhey Shyam Gupta, Vinod Kumar Saxena, Satya Naraia Gaur, S.B. Ramdeo, S.S. Goyal, Murari Lal Maheshwari, Prabhu Dayal, Surendra Kumar Batija and K.L. Narang were filed. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Labour Court vide order dated 20th Jan. 1986 computed the wages of respondent No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 10,678/- holding that respondent No. 1 had actually worked as Lineman-II. Aggrieved by the said order of the Labour Court, dated 20th January, 1986, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.

3. The case of the petitioner is that under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court has limited jurisdiction, only that of an Executing Court and the Labour Court is not entitled to compute the financial benefits of the employee. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the question of entitlement of wages of the employee as Lineman-II was never settled either by a settlement or an award by a competent court as to whether respondent No. 1 had worked on the post of Lineman-II and as such, it was not within the competence of the Labour (sic Labour Court), under sec 33-C(2) to compute the wages. It is submitted that if the finding of the Labour Court is held to be justified it would mean that even without any appointment by a competent authority even the junior most person would enjoy the benefits of a post of promotion at the cost of senior persons without their fault at all. Shri R.R.L. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to support his contention, has placed reliance on C.I.W T. Corpn. v. Workmen, (AIR 1974 SC 1604) , U.P. State Electricity Board v. Jhagreshwar Prasad (1982 Lab. I. C. 284) and R.R.S.S.V. Union v. Judge, Industrial Tribunal. Rajasthan (1985 Lab. LC. 1023) In C. I. W. T. Corpn. V. Workmen (Supra) the Supreme Court examined the nature of the proceeding under section 33-C(2) and observed that proceeding under section 33.C(2) is a proceeding. generally, in the nature of an execution proceeding wherein the Labour Court calculates the amount of money due to a workman from his employer, if the workman is entitled to any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the Labour Court proceeds to compute the benefit in terms of money. It was further observed that such calculation or computation follows upon an existing right to the money or benefit, in view of its being previously adjudged, or otherwise duly provided for. In U.P.S.E. Board v. Jhagreshwar Prasad (Supra), the question arose where an employee who was appointed as a coolie, but in fact he had worked as a clerk during certain period and claimed the emoluments of a clerk from the employer under Section 33-C(2) and, it was held that he would not be entitled to such emoluments on the mere proof of the fact hat he had performed the duties of a clerk for some period, without there being a finding about his pre-existing right to such emoluments or corre