JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - This is an application by daily wage earners borne of the nominal muster roll serving in the Lift Irrigation Spun Pipe' factory at Pratapnagari in the district of Cuttack set up in the year 1965 by the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation, it company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and a Government of Orissa undertaking, and their union for a mandamus to the Corporation to regularise their service under the corporation and for payment of pecuniary benefits at par with regular employees doing same nature of work as they under the corporation. 2. It has not been disputed that the Orissa Lift. Irrigation Corporation is a Government of Orissa undertaking and is state for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioners have alleged that they have been working in the factory of the corporation for more than a decade and rendering the same nature and type of work as are being rendered by the irregular and permanent employees of the corporation as skilled semi-skilled and unskilled employees. Each of them is paid a nominal sum as wages per day and the corporation has violated not only the principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India it has also violated the Directive Principles contained in Part IV of the Constitution. By reason of such discrimination. i.e., by treating them as casual employees, the corporation has been exploiting them and denying them the socio-economic rights and the rights under the Industrial Disputes Act. The corporation has work load which is the justification for their engagement for more than a decade. But on some pretext or the other, it has been deferring taking a decision to regularise their service. 3. In the return submitted to the rule nisi, the corporation has averred that regularisation of the service of the Petitioners is not economically a viable and feasible proposition. The corporation is running at a huge loss and regularisation of the employees would further escalate the loss. The service of all the Petitioners are in fact not essential. Some of them remain idle when there is no work. Having regard to the nature of the enterprise undertaken, the corporation engages employees on daily wages. The corporation is running at a huge loss and regularisation of the employees would further escalate the loss. The service of all the Petitioners are in fact not essential. Some of them remain idle when there is no work. Having regard to the nature of the enterprise undertaken, the corporation engages employees on daily wages. Besides the service rendered by them is not of the same nature any type or of same duration as discharged by the regular employees of the corporation. They do not shoulder the same responsibilities which the regular employees do. Besides, it is urged that the Petitioners have an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. The last contention needs only to be stated to be rejected., When the Petitioners have alleged violation of fundamental rights and have sought removal of an evil which despite repeated mandates of the Supreme, Court persists, the plea that the Petitioners have an' alternative efficacious remedy cannot operate as a bar disentitling them the relief under the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 5. It is worthwhile to note that some of the cases decided by the Supreme Court were occasioned on petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 6. There is no dispute that these employees have been serving in the factory of the Corporation for more than a decade and are being treated as casual labour, daily wage earners on nominal muster roll and are being paid a nominal amount as wages for service rendered by them. This has been deprecated by the Supreme Court over and over again. I need only refer to a few of them. In Dhirendra Chamoli and Anr. v. State of U.P. (1986) 1 S.C. C. 937, the Supreme Court considered the cases of casual workers engaged by Nehru Yuvak Kendra on daily wage, basis and directed that they be paid salary of Class IV employees under the Central Government. In Surinder Singh and Another Vs. Engineer-in-chief, C.P.W.D. and Others the writ applications were by daily wage earners who served under the C. P. W. D. for several years claiming wages at par with the employees employed to do identical work. They claimed equal pay for equal work flowing from the constitutional mandate under Article 14 of the Constitution. In Surinder Singh and Another Vs. Engineer-in-chief, C.P.W.D. and Others the writ applications were by daily wage earners who served under the C. P. W. D. for several years claiming wages at par with the employees employed to do identical work. They claimed equal pay for equal work flowing from the constitutional mandate under Article 14 of the Constitution. It was reiterated that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work was not a mere abstract doctrine and was enforceable and mandated: ...The Central Government the State Government and likewise, all public sector undertakings are expected to function like model and enlightened employers,and arguments such as those which were advanced before us that the principle of equal pay for equal work is an abstract doctrine which cannot be enforced in a Court of law should ill come from the mouths of the State and State undertakings, So observing they not only directed that not only the Petitioners before them but also other daily rated employees in the organisation would receive the same salary and allowances as are paid to regular and permanent employees., The last 'decision I need refer to is the daily rated casual labour employed under the Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P and T Department Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others. There were three types of workers under daily rated casual workers. The unskilled labour consisted of safai workers helpers peons etc. and are mostly engaged in digging carrying loads and other similar types of work. The semi-skilled labour consisted of carpenters, wiremen, draftsmen, A. C. Mechanics etc. who bad technical experience but did not hold any degree or diploma. The skilled labour consisted of labour doing technical work. Reference was made to Clause (2) of Article 38 which contained one of the Directive Principles of State Policy and reads as follows: (2) The State shall, in particular, strive to minimise the inequalities in income and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only onanist individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations," Though the provision is not enforceable in court of law reliance can be placed to show that the Petitioners have been subjected to hostile discrimination. Denial of the minimum pay in the pay scales of regularly employed workmen amounted to "exploitation of labour". Denial of the minimum pay in the pay scales of regularly employed workmen amounted to "exploitation of labour". The Government cannot take advantage of its dominant position and compel any worker to work even as casual labourer on starving wages. The casual labourer might have agreed to work on low wages having no choice because of his poverty but the Government being a model employer, classification of employment as regular recruitment and casual recruitment for the purpose of paying less than the minimum pay payable to the employees in the corresponding regular cadre particularly in the lowest rung of the department was not tenable. . The numerous rights enshrined in the Constitution indicated the socialistic goal; right to security of work is one of the rights and the right of security of work is of utmost importance. Unless a person has a feeling that he belongs to the organisation, he will not put forward his best efforts to produce more. He .should possess the sense of belonging which would arise when he has a feeling that be would not be turned out of employment the next day at the whim of the management and that is the justification for the observation "...managements and the Governmental agencies in particular should not allow workers to remain as casual labourers or temporary employees for an unreasonably long period of time. Where is any justification to keep persons casual labourers for years..." The Corporation is seen to be persisting in some other mode than directed by the Supreme Court. Steps should bave been taken as soon as the first decision was rendered by the Supreme Court two years back to regularise the services of such employees as are required for the job undertaken by the organisation. If there can be no justification to have casual Chairman or Managing Director or superior officers, as casual employees on nominal muster roll, there can similarly be DO justification for having employees in the lower rungs as casual workers. That is naked exploitation of poverty and the disadvantaged and helpless condition of the poor seeking sustenance by labour. 7. The argument that the corporation is running at a loss or engaged in work for the welfare of the people are so irrelevant and inappropriate that those are stated to be rejected. That is naked exploitation of poverty and the disadvantaged and helpless condition of the poor seeking sustenance by labour. 7. The argument that the corporation is running at a loss or engaged in work for the welfare of the people are so irrelevant and inappropriate that those are stated to be rejected. The corporation is the best judge of its requirement, its capacity and resource's. But engage if it shall, it has to pay remuneration wages to which another doing the same work under it is entitled. It cannot indulge in exploitary practice. . I, therefore, allow the writ application and direct that the corporation should forthwith engage itself in an exercise and prepare a scheme on rational basis for absorbing as far as possible such casual workers who have been serving under it for more than one year, as was done in Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch's ease1 (supra). As regards arrears of wages, direct that the Petitioners or such of them as are still in employment, be paid wages from 1st August, 1988 at the rates equivalent to the wages paid to the employees rendering similar type of work under the Corporation. Payment be made within two months from today. 8. In the result, therefore, the writ application is allowed. But in the facts and circumstances of the cases there would be no order as to costs. S.C. Mohapatra, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Allowed