1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6292/2009 Prakash Chandra Vaishnav vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER: 6.7.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Sajjan Singh, for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947) seeking relief “equal pay for equal work” and said relief has been denied vide award dated 19.2.2008 by the labour court, Udaipur. As per the facts of the case, the petitioner was in service of the respondent. His services was terminated. He challenged the order of termination by filing the writ petition being SBCWP No.2828/1990. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 21.8.1997. This Court observed that “...it would be futile to decide the petition on merits....” and, thereafter, it was observed “....It may be equally unjust and inequitable to foist the services of the petitioner on the respondents merely because the petitioner continued in service because the petitioner continued in service due to the interim order and the petition was pending for last so many years...” 2 This court further observed that “....It is also possible that the termination was justifiable and hence, legal and valid when ordered....” Then this Court held that “..In my opinion, interest of justice and equity would be met if the petition is decided with following directions : - A. The impugned order of termination is set aside. B. The respondent shall be at liberty to re-examine in the light of his past record, the case of the petitioner for his continuation and regularization in accordance with law. The reasons for which the service was terminated by the impugned order, if exist, can also be considered now. C. For his relief of equal pay for equal work, the petitioner will have to move the Industrial/Labour Court, under S.33 c(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed in above terms. No order as to costs.” With the help of the said decision of this Court dated 21.8.1997 it appears that petitioner approached the labour court for relief claimed and referred above “equal pay for equal work”. It appears from the facts that substantially the petitioner's contention was that some of the persons who were appointed and working on the same post on which petitioner was working are getting more salary. The labour court observed that petitioner's services was regularized vide order dated 30.4.1999 3 and he is entitled for selection scale only after completion of 9 years from that date and not from the earlier date. In view of the totality of the facts of the case it is not a case where the petitioner has been denied equal pay, in fact, the petitioner is seeking relief of selection scale from the date of his initial date of appointment rather than his regular appointment. It is apparent from the earlier judgment of this Court delivered in the petitioner's own writ petition no.2828/1990 dated 21.8.1997 that this Court directed the respondents to re-examine the case of the petitioner for his continuation and regularization of the services in accordance with law and, therefore, the petitioner's services prior to that order was not regular services as has been held and which is not in dispute, therefore, if petitioner is not getting the selection scale, which has been granted to other employees and there is difference of salary, it is justified. In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-