Vijay Bahuguna, J. - (1.) The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Shramik Sangh on behalf of the employees and members, who had filed Claim Petition Nos. 329/1/1987, 25/1/1988, 76/1/1989 and 205/7/1989 before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal. The petitioner challenges the validity of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on 28-3-1990 rejecting the aforesaid four Claim Petitions filed by the members of the petitioners association.
(2.) The petitioner is an association of the daily wagers, nominal roll writers and Class IV employees of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. The petitioner is the sole association of such employees and all the daily wage employee and regular Class IV employees are its members. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. (Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P.) (hereinafter referred to as the Board) is the statutory body established by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The daily wage employees are being appointed from 1960 onwards and are discharging the duties such as Clerks, Typists, Bundle Lifters, Daftaries, Cleaners, Duplicating Machine Operators, Malies, Peons, Sweepers, Waterman, Drivers and Chaukidar etc. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the daily wage employees, who are working for the last several years, are not being paid to the employees performing similar nature of work on regular basis. The petitioner claims equa1 pay for equal work.
(3.) The Services Tribunal did not decide the case on merits and recorded the following finding:- "From the above discussion it is clear that in the above case the petitioners are daily wage earners and they are being discriminated against regular employees. There is no doubt that as alleged both the two types of per sons are doing the same work but they are not getting the same pay as they are similarly placed, the discrimination will be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and not of Article 16.of the Constitution. In these circumstances it is clear that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain such references.";