Bhagwati Prasad, J. - (1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the award of the Labour Court Ex.R 9 and alongwith the challenge to the award Ex.P 9, he has also made two assertions in the writ petition. One pertains to regularisation of the services of the petitioner and another in regard to payment of salary in the regular pay scale to the petitioner on the principle of equal pay for equal work of the post on which he was working.
(2.) The petitioner was engaged by the respondent Corporation as Assistant in the office in pursuance of Annex. R. 1 a scheme floated by the respondents to provide assistance to the over burdened staff and by that they employed persons on hourly wage basis. He remained in the employment from 15.9.1984 to 11.11.1987 only on hourly wage basis.
(3.) The case of the petitioner is that he did not discharge the duties on hourly wages basis but worked from 10 A.M. to 5 RM. and, therefore, he has discharged the functions of a regular Junior Assistant in the department. Since he has discharged the duties of Junior Assistant from 10 A.M. to 5 RM. and discharged all those functions which the regularly recruited Junior Assistants were doing he is entitled to salary in the regular pay scale on the principle of equal pay for equal work and is also entitled to regularisation because he was initial employed in the year 1984 and now in 1999 it becomes 15 years. As regards challenge to the award it is submitted that though reinstatement has been ordered by the Tribunal but no reason has been given to award the financial benefit to the tune of Rs. 4,000/-. He is entitled to full salary.;