1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4252 OF 2008. Sopan Somnath Pawar. ... Petitioner. Versus The Superintendent, Office of the District Agriculture Officer, Ahmednagar and another. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.T.Shelke, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.V.Tele, A.G.P.for the Respondents. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 06.07.2009. PER COURT 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges judgment and order dated 3l.8.2007, rendered by the Labour Court, Ahmednagar in an application (IDA) No.7/2003. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Judge of the 2 Labour Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the wages as per the formula 1/26th per day applicable to unskilled worker. 2. Heard learned counsel and learned A.G.P. 3. The learned Judge of the Labour Court found that the petitioner was employed on daily wages. It is important to note that he was employed w.e.f. 1.4.1995. His claim was only in respect of difference of pay for period between 1.4.1995 to 30.11.2001. It was contention of the Respondent that the petitioner worked from 1.7.1998 and wrongly he sought the arrears from 1.4.1995. 4. Mr.Shelke, learned advocate states that the petitioner would not claim arrears with effect from 1.4.1995 and may be paid the arrears from 1.7.98 onwards but denial of such arrears is uncalled for. Mr.Shelke, also submits that the petitioner has not claimed continuity in service or reinstatement and there was no reason to deny 3 the benefit of difference of the pay which was available to other similarly situated worker. In other words, he seeks benefit of the principle of "equal pay for equal work". The learned Judge of the Labour Court denied such benefit only for the reason that the petitioner had not worked continuously for 240 days. As stated before,the petitioner did not claim reinstatement or continuity in service on account of his having worked 240 days and more. He is entitled to claim the difference of pay which was payable to similarly situated workers. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned order stands quashed. The petitioner will be entitled to receive the difference of payment in respect of the wages payable to him from 1.7.1998 onwards till 30.11.2001. The Respondent shall arrange for such payment within a period of four (4) months. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp425208 4