- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7. 10. 1991 and is restricted only on one point namely; that a prayer was made for grant of benefit for equal pay for equal work in the writ petition which has been reproduced at page 6 of the judgment but while deciding the said writ petition the learned single Judge has not given any decision thereon. The present is a matter in respect of 36 writ petitions and different prayers were made in the writ petitions.
(2.) IN the judgment, the learned single Judge has reproduced the arguments which were raised and in those arguments the plea of grant of benefit of equal pay for equal work was not raised and, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned single Judge to decide or adjudicate upon the said issue inspite of the fact that the said prayer was made in the writ petition. The proper course for the petitioner was, if a decision has not been given on a particular point, to move to the review petition as has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of Bank of Baroda vs. Mahaveer Lal (1 ). The question as the whether the petitioner is entitled for equal pay on the basis of equal work is a question of fact and number of factors have to be taken into consideration for that. It has been held by the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Another vs. Pramod Bhartiya and Others (2), that for considering equal pay for equal work many things like responsibility, skill, effort, conditions of work etc. are required. It was also held that it must be remembered that since the plea of equal pay for equal work has to be examined with reference to Article 14 the burden is upon the petitioner to establish the right to equal pay or a plea of discrimination as the case may be. Section 2 (h) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 was referred in this case which reads as under : - "2 (h ). "same work or work of a similar nature" means work in respect of which the skill, effort and responsibility required are the same, when performed, under similar working conditions, by a man or a woman and the difference, if any, between the skill, effort and responsibility required of a man and those required of a woman are not of practical importance in relation to the terms and conditions of employment. " From the above proposition of law it is clear that the question of equal work depends on various factors like responsibility, skill, effort and condition of work. Simply on the allegation it cannot be assumed that the nature of the work is same. It is not the matter of assumption but of proof and the burden is on the petitioner to establish. The proper course for the petitioner was to give the details of the service which he is rendering and then to compare with the details of the other services and should have discharged his burden. The writ petition could be dismissed on the ground that the burden which was on the petitioner has not been discharged. Since the petitioner has not filed any review before the learned single Judge in respect of the point that the matter of equal pay for equal work was argued and no decision has been given, the same can not be considered herein Special Appeal. Beside this the question as to whether the petitioner was entitled for the benefit of equal pay on the basis of equal work no foundation has been laid in the writ petition and facts were not given to discharge the burden of the petitioner. The Special Appeal has no force and is dismissed accordingly. .;