JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of the Labour Court dated 20th January, 1986, whereby the Labour Court entertained a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, for computation of wages on the ground that Fateh Chand, respondent No. 1 had worked as Line Man-II, though he vas appointed as casual helper. The principle of equal wages for equal work is involved in the case. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 was appointed as casual helper on 8th October, 1979. Respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Judge, Labour Court for computation of wages claiming Rs. 17,215/-. The case of respondent No. 1 is that, though, he was appointed on the post of Helper, but actually he worked as Line Man-II and as such, be is entitled to the emoluments of Line Man-II. Before the judge, Labour Court, the employee (res. No. 1) filed his own affidavit in support of his claim. On behalf of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, the affidavits of Radhey Shyam Gupta, Vinod Kumar Saxena, Satya Naraia Gaur, S.B. Ramdeo, S.S. Goyal, Murari Lal Maheshwari, Prabhu Dayal, Surendra Kumar Batija and K.L. Narang were filed. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Labour Court vide order dated 20th Jan. 1986 computed the wages of respondent No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 10,678/- holding that respondent No. 1 had actually worked as Lineman-II. Aggrieved by the said order of the Labour Court, dated 20th January, 1986, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. 3. The case of the petitioner is that under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court has limited jurisdiction, only that of an Executing Court and the Labour Court is not entitled to compute the financial benefits of the employee. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the question of entitlement of wages of the employee as Lineman-II was never settled either by a settlement or an award by a competent court as to whether respondent No. 1 had worked on the post of Lineman-II and as such, it was not within the competence of the Labour (sic Labour Court), under sec 33-C(2) to compute the wages. It is submitted that if the finding of the Labour Court is held to be justified it would mean that even without any appointment by a competent authority even the junior most person would enjoy the benefits of a post of promotion at the cost of senior persons without their fault at all. Shri R.R.L. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to support his contention, has placed reliance on C.I.W T. Corpn. v. Workmen, ( AIR 1974 SC 1604 ) , U.P. State Electricity Board v. Jhagreshwar Prasad (1982 Lab. I. C. 284) and R.R.S.S.V. Union v. Judge, Industrial Tribunal. Rajasthan (1985 Lab. LC. 1023) In C. I. W. T. Corpn. V. Workmen (Supra) the Supreme Court examined the nature of the proceeding under section 33-C(2) and observed that proceeding under section 33.C(2) is a proceeding. generally, in the nature of an execution proceeding wherein the Labour Court calculates the amount of money due to a workman from his employer, if the workman is entitled to any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the Labour Court proceeds to compute the benefit in terms of money. It was further observed that such calculation or computation follows upon an existing right to the money or benefit, in view of its being previously adjudged, or otherwise duly provided for. In U.P.S.E. Board v. Jhagreshwar Prasad (Supra), the question arose where an employee who was appointed as a coolie, but in fact he had worked as a clerk during certain period and claimed the emoluments of a clerk from the employer under Section 33-C(2) and, it was held that he would not be entitled to such emoluments on the mere proof of the fact hat he had performed the duties of a clerk for some period, without there being a finding about his pre-existing right to such emoluments or corresponding obligation upon the employer in that regard. It was also held in that case that a workman cannot put forward a claim in an application under section 33C(2) in respect of a matter which is not based on an existing right and which can be appropriately the subject matter of an industrial dispute which requires a reference under section 10. It was also held in that case that a workman cannot put forward a claim in an application under section 33C(2) in respect of a matter which is not based on an existing right and which can be appropriately the subject matter of an industrial dispute which requires a reference under section 10. In K.R S.S.V. Union v. Judge, Industrial Tribunal Rajasthan (Supra) it was observed by thin Court that the principles of `equal pay for equal work' cannot be extended to two totally different kinds of posts which are governed by different set of service rules and where their employers may be different. 4. Shri Ashok Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 on the other hand, has placed reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court in Jagdish Singh v. The Judge, Addl. Labour Court and Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 147 of 1978, decided on 22nd September, 1986) which is a judgment by one of us (Hon'ble Agrawal J.) In that case, the petitioner was appointed as Helper in the Electrical Department of the Cement Factory and since March 1969, he was entrusted with the work of Assistant Fitter and he was paid the salary of Assistant Fitter for one month and thereafter his salary was reduced. the petitioner filed an application under section 33-C (2) before the Addl. Labour Court claiming a salary of Rs. 329.92 as arrears. It was contested by the employer on the ground that the claim of the petitioner for extra wages for the post of Assistant Fitter on the basis that be had discharged his duties on the said post, does tot fell within the ambit of the jurisdiction that has been con erred under section 33-C (2) of the Act. In that case, it was held that such a petition was maintainable. In doing so, reliance was placed on a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Lakshmaya v. Labour Court, Hyderabad 1960 (1) LLJ 813 . Reliance was also placed can Inder Singh and Ors. v. Labour Court Jullundbur and Anr. (AIR 1969 P and H 310) and Vasanath Kshatriya v. The Presiding Officer. Labour Court, Mangalore and Anr. (1973-II LLJ 46) . On the basis of the aforesaid authorities. Reliance was also placed can Inder Singh and Ors. v. Labour Court Jullundbur and Anr. (AIR 1969 P and H 310) and Vasanath Kshatriya v. The Presiding Officer. Labour Court, Mangalore and Anr. (1973-II LLJ 46) . On the basis of the aforesaid authorities. it was held that the claim of the petitioner for being paid the difference of salary of the post of Helper and the post of Assistant Fitter, the duties of which post the petitioner has claimed to have performed could be adjudicated upon by the Labour Court under Sec 33-C (2). We agree with the proposition of law laid down in the case of Jagdish Singh v. The Judge, Additional Labour Court and Anr. (Supra). 5. However, we would like to deal with the submissions made by Shri R. R. L. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. The main submission of Shri Gupta is that respondent No. 1 was not entitled to the emoluments he claimed on the mere proof of the fact that he had performed the duties without there bring a finding about his pre-existing right to such emolument or corresponding obligation upon the employer in this regard. His submissions are mainly based on the case of U.P. state Electricity Board v. Jhagreshwar Prasad (Supra) and the case of the Supreme Court in C.I.W.T. Corpn. v. Workmen (Supra). We have no doubt about the proposition of law laid down in both the cases that there should be a pre-existing right or corresponding obligation of the employer for such payment. In U.P. State Electricity Board v. Jhagreshwar Prasad (Supra), the application under section 33-C (2) was not held maintainable as there was no pre-determination of the question that the respondents had the right to be suit on the mere proof of tie tact that he has performed the duties of clerk during certain period. In our opinion, the principle of equal pay for equal work was not considered in the two cases referred to above, because this principle has recently been promulgated by the Supreme Court on the basis of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It will be pertinent, at this juncture, to refer to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1992 Lab. It will be pertinent, at this juncture, to refer to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1992 Lab. L.C. 806) The Supreme Court in that case of served that .equal pay for equal work' is not a mere demagogic slogan. It is a constitutional goal capable of attainment through constitutional remedies. It was further observed that Act 39 (d) of the Constitution proclaims, as a Directive principle, the Constitutional goal of 'equal pay for equal work' for both man and women. Article 14 and 16 guarantee respectively the fundamental rights to equality before the law and (quality of opportunity in the matter of public employment. It was further observed by the Supreme Court that construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the preamble and Art 39(d), we are of the view that the principle 'Equal pay for equal work' is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer. The doctrine of 'Equal pay for Equal work' was also considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD ( AIR 1986 SC 584 ) . In that case, it was laid down by the Supreme Court that on the basis of this doctrine employees are entitled to the same wages as are paid to similar employees. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred cases, we are of the opinion that the right to claim wages for the work done is based on existing right and, thus, respondent No. 1 was entitled to file an application before the Labour Court for computation of his wages. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit or illegality affecting the jurisdiction in the order passed by the Labour Court. 6. In the premises aforesaid, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed with no,order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******