ARJUN SINGH Vs. RSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a direction for granting him regular pay scale of Conductor from the inception of his service career on the anvil of doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' with all consequential benefits. The petitioner has also prayed for direction against the respondents to regularize his services as Conductor from the date of his initial appointment.

(2.) For claiming the aforementioned reliefs, it is inter-alia alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition that at the threshold of his service career he was appointed as Conductor in the year 1987. While serving as Conductor, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with and being aggrieved from the said action of the respondents, an application was submitted by him under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947') questioning his termination before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur. During the pendency of the said petition before the Industrial Tribunal, rival parties resolved the dispute amicably and matter was compromised and as a consequence a compromise award was passed by the Tribunal. In adherence of the award, the petitioner was taken back on duty in the month of May 1990 and he was allowed daily wages @ Rs.25 only. As per the version of the petitioner, since May 1990 he is continuing in the service of the Corporation without any interruption and the daily wages which were allowed to him were also enhanced to the tune of Rs.40 per day w.e.f. June 1993.

(3.) For invoking the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work', the petitioner has also averred in the petition that the duties undertaken by him as Conductor are almost akin to that of a regular employee of the Corporation and therefore he is entitled for the regular pay scale of Conductor. The petitioner has also averred in the writ petition that keeping in view longevity of his service, he is entitled for regularization of his services as Conductor. In his pleadings, the petitioner has also referred to a writ petition, bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2415 of 1993, which was preferred by him earlier before this Court. According to petitioner, while deciding the said writ petition, this Court vide order dated 7 th of February 1995 passed the following order: