1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.232 OF 2008 Union of India. ..Petitioner V/s. The General Secretary, Indian Naval Employees Union & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr.Y.S.Bhate a/w.N.R.Prajapati for petitioner. Ms.Gayatri Singh for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : FEBRUARY 14, 2008. DATE : FEBRUARY 14, 2008. DATE : FEBRUARY 14, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. The argument of the Petitioner that the direction issued by the Labour Court is in the teeth of decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. V/s. Umadevi Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. V/s. Umadevi Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. V/s. Umadevi and ors. [2006(4) Scale 197, and ors. [2006(4) Scale 197, and ors. [2006(4) Scale 197, in particular, the dictum in paragraph 35 of the said Judgment, in my opinion, is completely misplaced. In the reported Judgment the Apex Court considered the proposition that the concept of equal pay for equal work is different from the concept of conferring permanency on those who have been appointed on ad hoc basis, temporary basis or based on no process of selection as envisaged by the Rules. 2. In the present case, the issue brought before the Labour Court was that the workers, who had become 2 regular workers but the benefit of their casual services, leave, increment, length of services etc. was not extended to them though such casual services were offered to other workers similarly placed. The Court below after considering materials on record proceeded to direct that the Petitioner to extend benefits of casual services to all the workmen, who are similarly placed from the date of joining of their services. In other words, Tribunal has directed the Petitioner to observe parity between the similarly placed person. No fault can be found with the ultimate conclusion reached by the Tribunal as aforesaid. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this Petition. Dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)