STATE OF HARYANA Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE crux of the facts, which would be relevant for deciding the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that the name of Om Parkash workman -respondent No.1 (for brevity ''the workman '') was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and was appointed on daily wages as whole time Sweeper in the workshop of petitioner -management of Haryana Roadways, Rohtak (for short ''the petitioner -management), by means of office order No.2485/EA/RK dated 31.7.1981 (Annexure P1). He worked as such for many years and moved an application, claiming the computation of money/benefits on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' w.e.f. 1.1.1985 to 30.6.1989, invoking the provisions of Section 33 -C(2) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(2.) THE petitioner -management filed the reply, refuted the claim of workman, denied all the allegations contained in the application and prayed for its dismissal.

(3.) TAKING into consideration the entire material on record, the Industrial Tribunal -cum -Presiding Officer of the Labour Court (in short ''the LC '') held that the workman is entitled to and directed the petitioner -management to pay him the amount in question w.e.f. 1.5.1986 to 30.6.1989 as difference of pay on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', by virtue of impugned award dated 2.1.1992 (Annexure P2).