IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13791 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision:17.03.2011 Shri Mam Raj and others ....Petitioners versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak and another. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. Satbir Singh Goripuria, DAG, Haryana. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. Through the writ petition, the petitioners seek to quash the impugned award passed by the first respondent Labour Court, Rohtak, rejecting their claim for payment of the difference in pay for regular employees and the pay that now being paid as daily wagers. The principle of 'same pay same work' can admit some certain exceptions and one known exception is that, various categories of workers need not be paid the same wages merely because the work is the same, for, the responsibility attendant to such categories of workers could be different. A worker, who is borne on the regular cadre, cannot be treated as equal to persons, who are employed by the Government on daily wages. It has Civil Writ Petition No.13791 of 1989 (O&M) - 2- been held in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited & Workmen- (2007) 1 SCC 408 that no direction could be given that a daily wage employee should be paid the same salary of a regular employee. 2. The award already provides for difference in wages from the filing of the petition and the writ petition is for extending the benefit from the date of their appointment itself. If at all, the management alone could be treated to be aggrieved but they have not challenged the award for what it already provides. In the light of the law stated above, it is not possible to accede to the petitioners' claim. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 17.03.2011 sanjeev