JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who claim to be working as 'Ward Boys' on daily wages in S. M. S. Hospital Jaipur. The petitioners have prayed that (i) they may be made permanent on the post of Ward Boy (Class IV employee) and be provided the regular pay-scale of the post on which they are working as is given to such other permanent employees of the same cadre and (ii) that the respondents should frame Standing Orders as are provisions of Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act or under the Service Rules which are framed for other employees of the Hospital/Department and should be governed in accordance with such Standing Orders/Rules. 2. It is submitted by Mr. Mahendra Shah learned counsel that petitioners No. 1 and 2 have been appointed verbally as Ward Boys (Class IV employees) on March 10 1988 and June 1 1988 respectively on daily wage basis at the rate of Rs. 14/- per day. There are other permanent Ward Boys in S. M. S. Hospital Jaipur who are also working under the control of respondent No. 3 who is their appointing authority. It is contended that there is no difference in the nature of duties performed by Ward Boys who are appointed in substantive capacity and the petitioners are performing similar jobs and functions. Therefore they are entitled to be governed by the principle of ' equal pay for equal work" and should be paid the regular pay-scale of Ward Boys i. e. Rs. 700-940 as is paid to those who are working permanently on the post of Ward Boys. It is also contended that petitioners be made regular on the posts of Ward Boys. It is also pointed out that S. M. S. Hospital and Medical College falls within the ambit of "industry" as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the petitioners who are Class IV employees are covered under the definition of "workman" under Section 2(8) of the ID Act. Therefore they are entitled to be given benefits as are provided to the workmen under the relevant statutory provisions particularly in respect of their retrenchment of services from the employment. 3. Therefore they are entitled to be given benefits as are provided to the workmen under the relevant statutory provisions particularly in respect of their retrenchment of services from the employment. 3. It is also contended by the learned counsel that keeping of persons in any temporary capacity on daily wages for long time without regularisation of their services and not paying them the regular pay-scale falls under the definition of unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra) read with Chapter V of the ID Act and the same is prohibited by mandatory provisions of Chapter V-C of the Act in particular Section 25-T and Section 25 V of the said Act since they are performing similar duties as Ward Boys (Class IV employees). It is also contended that nature of their duties and job assigned to them is similar in all respects to the one performed by those on the post of permanent Ward Boys. Thus this practice is discriminatory and arbitrary & is violative of Articles 14,16 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the respondents are bound by law to frame the Service Code for the employment by virtue of mandatory provisions of Section 3 of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act. 1946 which casts mandatory obligations on the respondents to frame the Code stipulating the State Service Conditions of its employees even while working on daily wages/ work charged basis. It is further contended that merely because alternate remedy exists by way of approaching Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court under the I Act it cannot be said that when there is violation of Articles 14,16 and 39(d) of the Act (sic Constitution of India) the petitioners cannot approach this Court for quick redress of their grievances when there is hardly any dispute regarding the facts. 4. It is contended by Mr. Ashok Parihar,. learned Additional Government Advocate that in the return filed on behalf of the respondents it has not been admitted that the petitioners are working as Ward Boys. but it has been stated that they are working as causal labours on daily wage basis at the rate of Rs. 14/., per day. It is also denied that the petitioners are discharging similar and identical works as are discharged by permanent Ward Boys (Class IV employees). but it has been stated that they are working as causal labours on daily wage basis at the rate of Rs. 14/., per day. It is also denied that the petitioners are discharging similar and identical works as are discharged by permanent Ward Boys (Class IV employees). It is also submitted that the petitioners being "workmen" and answering-respondents an industry" the petitioners should have raised an industrial dispute if they had any grievance against the answering-respondents under the provision of ID Act. It is also submitted that the petitioners are not assigned any responsibility as is assigned to regular Class IV employees. 5. It is further contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the respondents cannot be said to be engaged in any unfair labour practice as permanent appointments have already been made on regular sanctioned posts of Class IV employees in the S.M.S. Hospital Jaipur and in addition to that there are some sanctioned posts of employees to be engaged on daily wage basis to meet the urgent pressure of work. The petitioners have been appointed on daily wage basis keeping in view the pressure of work in the hospital and therefore are neither entitled to get similar pay as is drawn by the Ward Boys who are working on permanent basis nor are they entitled to get their services regularised since their appointment is not against any regular vacancy. 6. The first preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents is that the petitioners should have filed appropriate proceedings under ID Act rather than filing a writ petition in this Court for redressal of their grievances. It is admitted by both the parties that the petitioners are "workmen" and are governed by the provisions of 1D Act. It is settled law that mere existence of an alternate remedy is no bar to petitioners to approach this Court under extra-ordinary jurisdiction of Article 26 of the Constitution. Moreover in this case violation of Articles 14,16 & 39 (d) is claimed and it is also alleged that the respondents are indulging in unfair labour practice of the petitioners on account of which petitioners are suffering. The petitioners belong to the lowest rungs of the society so in my view doors of this Court should not be closed for them on account of technicality raised on behalf of the respondents. 7. The petitioners belong to the lowest rungs of the society so in my view doors of this Court should not be closed for them on account of technicality raised on behalf of the respondents. 7. The next contention of the respondents is that the petitioners are appointed as casual labour and are not assigned any work of responsibility as is assigned to regularly employed Ward Boys/Class IV employees. No details have been given of work assigned to petitioners so as to compare whether the duty performed by/work assigned to petitioners is different than that performed by Ward Boys. It has been mentioned that the petitioners are not assigned any work of responsibility which does not mean anything. The appointment order of the petitioners is naturally in possession of the respondents which could have been produced to show in what capacity their appointment is made. Apart from that the muster roll in which entries regarding payment of the wages are made could also have been produced to prove the contention that the petitioners are not working as Ward Boys but in some other capacity. Merely because the petitioners have been engaged on daily wage basis of Rs. 14/- per day will not be enough to prove that they are not working as Ward Boys as claimed by them. It can therefore be presumed that the above said documents were not produced by the respondents because the same would have gone against the contentions raised by the respondents. 8. The doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" cannot be enforced as a fundamental right but by virtue of Article 39 (d). it has to be read under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. This principle was incorporated under Article 39 (d), of the Constitution as a Directive Principle of State Policy; perhaps for the first time. by the Apex Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 618 and it was pointed out that the principle has to be read into Article 14 of the Constitution which enjoins the State not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the law and also into Article 16 which declares that there should be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. In case of Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and others (1989) 2 SCC 235 it was reiterated by the Supreme Court that this doctrine is applicable when employees holding the same rank perform similar functions and discharge similar (duties and responsibilities but they are denied equality in matters relating to the scale of pay. In such cases court would grant relief on the application of the doctrine. In Daily Rated Casual Labour v. Union of India and others (1988) 1 SCC 122 ) while discussing the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that daily rated casual labourers in P & T Department doing work similar to that of regular workers of the Department were entitled to minimum pay in the pay scale of the regular workers plus DA but without increments from the date of filing writ petition before the Apex Court. It was also held that classification of employees into regularly recruited employees and casual employees for the purpose of paying less than the minimum pay payable to employees in the corresponding regular cadres particularly in the lowest rungs of the department where the pay scales are the lowest is not tenable. In Bhagwan Dass V. State of Haryana, (1987) 4 SCC 634 it was held by the Apex Court that if duties and functions of temporary appointees and employees of regular cadre in the same Government department are similar there cannot be discrimination in pay between them merely on the ground of difference in mode of their selection or that the appointment or scheme under which appointment made was temporary. In Dhirendra Chamoli and another V. State of U. P., 1986) 1 SCC 637 it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that casual workers on daily wage basis engaged by Government in different Nehru Yuvak Kendias in the country performing the same duties as performed by regular Class IV employees were entitled to salary and conditions of service on par with the regular workers. The contention raised on behalf of the respondents that petitioners had joined the service at their own desire and knowing well the emoluments being paid to them and that they are appointed on temporary basis therefore now they are not entitled to claim equal wages as are paid to Ward Boys/Class IV employees has also no force since in a country like ours where there is acute shortage of employment and choice for a person is either starve or accept employment on any disadvantageous terms & conditions cannot be held to he a ground for denying the payment of such emoluments to him which he is legally entitled. I am therefore, of the considered opinion that in view of the legal position discussed above and also in view of the fact that there is no reason to come to a different conclusion than that the petitioners are performing the work of Ward Boys they are entitled to get the same pay which the other Ward Boys working on permanent basis are getting. 9. The petitioners as stated above have been appointed in the months of March and June. 1988 and since then are continuing on daily wage basic. getting only Rs. 14 - per day. It has been pointed out that appointments of the petitioners have been made against temporary vacancies keeping in view the pressure of work in the SMS Hospital Jaipur. The filling-up of temporary vacancies on daily wage basis clearly indicates that such temporary appointments are made on account of temporary pressure of work which arises from time to time in the SMS Hospital. When the pressure of work is temporary and the appointments are made against temporary vacancies on daily wage basis the natural course of events can be that as soon as the pressure of temporary work subsides or is complete the services of such persons who are appointed on casual basis shall come to an end. However such is not the case with the petitioners. The petitioners are working against temporary vacancies on daily wage basis of Rs. 14/- per day since about more than two years and therefore it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the appointment of the petitioners was made keeping in view the temporary need/staff pressure of work in the SMS Hospital. The petitioners are working against temporary vacancies on daily wage basis of Rs. 14/- per day since about more than two years and therefore it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the appointment of the petitioners was made keeping in view the temporary need/staff pressure of work in the SMS Hospital. When the appointment continues for as long as nearly two years it cannot be said that there was a temporary need on account of which appointment on daily wage basis was made. Several other writ petitions have also been filed before this court by the persons who are working on daily wage basis in SMS Hospital since more than 2 years but still continued to be employed on daily wage basis. Ours is a welfare State a socialistic republic which implies certain obligations to be discharged by the State. The goal as set in the Constitution of India, to be achieved by the State is that every citizen is able to have an employment which gives reasonable emoluments to enable him to look after his family and children and to provide them proper shelter & food. Apart from this Section 25-T of the I.D Act provides that no employer shall commit any unfair labour practice and whosoever does so shall be punishable with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or fine which may be extended to Rs. 1,000/- or with both. The Vth Schedule of the ID Act is regarding conditions termed to be unfair legal practices. The Condition No. 10 states "to employ workmen as "badlis" casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen shall be termed as unfair labour practice." This is what is being done with the petitioners by the respondents Nearly two years have passed away since they are appointed they are still continuing on daily wage basis at the rate of Rs. 14/- per day and sword of Damocles is hanging upon their employment and they can be thrown out from their job at any time. This is not expected of Sate, which is the employer in this case and State is expected to be a model of employment so as to create an example for others to be followed. It is the State. This is not expected of Sate, which is the employer in this case and State is expected to be a model of employment so as to create an example for others to be followed. It is the State. which is expected to come forward further to give such rights to its employees which are guaranteed by various Statutes framed by the State itself. In case of Daily Rated Casual Labour (supra) the same question arose for consideration of the Apex Court and it was observed that "it is again for this reason that the managements and the Governmental Agencies in particular should not allow workers to remain as casual labourers or temporary employees for an unreasonable long period of time...... The respondents are therefore directed to prepare a scheme on rational basis for absorbing as far as possible the casual labourers who have been continuously working for more than one year in P & T Department." The learned Additional Government Advocate has relied upon the case of Bhagwan Dass & others (supra) in which the Apex Court did not accept the request of the petitioners for absorbing them in regular employment. This was a case in which the petitioners had been appointed in the context of a scheme which by its very nature of things was transcient and temporary. It was also shown by way of counter affidavit that the said scheme was expected to function for ten months even though it had been extended from year to year. It was therefore held by the Apex Court that having regard to these facts and circumstances the prayer of the petitioners to absorb them as regular employees on permanent basis from the date of their initial appointment was not justified. However this is not the case with the petitioners. The petitioners have not been appointed on temporary basis under any temporary scheme which may expire in some near future as was the case in the matter discussed above. The petitioners have been appointed and are performing the work of Ward Boys in SMS Hospital which is a permanent institution. Their appointment even though made on account of temporary pressure of work has continued for nearly two years which shows that their services arc not required to over come any temporary pressure but their services are required to render appropriate service. to the patients who come for treatment in the said hospital. Their appointment even though made on account of temporary pressure of work has continued for nearly two years which shows that their services arc not required to over come any temporary pressure but their services are required to render appropriate service. to the patients who come for treatment in the said hospital. Therefore the case of Bhagwan Dass & others (supra) is of no help to the respondents. In case of Dhirendra Chamoli and another (supra) a prayer for regularisation of the services of workers who were serving as Class IV employees since several years was also made. These Class IV employees were working at different Nehru Yuvak Kendras sanctioned by Central Government and it was stated on behalf of the respondents that these Kendras were temporary in nature even though work continued for more than 12 years. It was observed by the Apex Court that "we hope and trust that posts will be sanctioned by the Central Government in different Nehru Yuvak Kendras so that these persons can be regularised." It was further observed by the Apex Court that "it is not at all desirable that any management and particularly the Central Government should continue to employ persons on casual basis in organisations which have been in existence for over 12 years." As already stated above the position in the present case is different as the petitioners are employed not under any temporary scheme or in any temporary Office/Kendra but in SMS Hospital which is a permanent institution and biggest hospital in the State of Rajasthan. It has been observed that since quite some time low paid employees like Class IV servants who hardly get enough to make their both ends meet and can ill-afford luxury litigation often have to come and knock at the doors of this Court for redressal of their grievances mostly to obtain "equal pay for equal work" and also for regularisation of their employment as they have been working on daily wages since several Nears in SMS Hospital as Ward Boys. It is therefore desirable that such low paid employees should not be forced to approach this Court individually for getting their grievances redressed and it is also desirable that the respondents should take necessary steps to redress their grievances in accordance with the law. 10. It is therefore desirable that such low paid employees should not be forced to approach this Court individually for getting their grievances redressed and it is also desirable that the respondents should take necessary steps to redress their grievances in accordance with the law. 10. It is also evident that the persons employed on daily wage basis are not governed by any Service Conditions/Rules/Standing Orders but the persons employed on permanent basis are governed by any Service Conditions/Rules. Even though a person may be employed on temporary/daily wage basis it is desirable and appropriate that his Service Conditions should be governed by a some sort of Rules,s.) that he knows what are his obligations and rights, which he may expect from his employer. It is a settled law that Government hospitals come within the ambit of the definition of "industry" and the provisions of ID Act are applicable to it. The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 (for short 'IE' Act') requires employers in industrial establishments formally to define conditions of employment under them and to make the same conditions known to the workmen employed by them. Section 3 of the IE Act inter alia lays down that within six months from the date on which this Act becomes applicable to an industrial establishment the employer shall submit to the Certifying Officers five copies of the draft Standing Officers proposed by him for adoption in his industrial establishment. It is also provided that provision shall be made in such draft for every matter set out in the Schedule which may be applicable to the Industrial Establishment and where model Standing Orders have been prescribed shall be as far as practicable in conformity with such model. Thus it is mandatory for the respondents to frame Standing Orders as per the provisions of the 1h Act. This however has not been done so far. It may also be mentioned that certain departments like PWD have framed Rules which govern Service Conditions of persons employed on work charge/daily wage basis in their departments. There is no reason why the respondents should not do the same. so far as daily wages employees in Government Hospitals including SMS Hospital. Jaipur are concerned. 11. It may also be mentioned that certain departments like PWD have framed Rules which govern Service Conditions of persons employed on work charge/daily wage basis in their departments. There is no reason why the respondents should not do the same. so far as daily wages employees in Government Hospitals including SMS Hospital. Jaipur are concerned. 11. It is therefore directed that the petitioners shall be entitled to minimum pay in the pay-scale of the regularly employed Ward Boys plus D A. but without increments from the date of filing of the writ petition. i.e. July 17,1989. The respondents shall make the payment of arrears to the petitioners within a period of three months. It is further directed that the respondents shall either adopt any Rules which may have been framed by any other Department of Government of Rajasthan for governing the Service Conditions of daily wage basis work charged employees to govern the Service Conditions of such persons who are employed on daily wage/work charged basis in various Government hospitals in Rajasthan or the respondents shall frame their own Standing Orders under the IE Act within a period of eight months to govern the conditions of persons who are employed on daily wage/work charged basis. The respondents are also directed to prepare a scheme on rational basis for absorbing the petitioners and other similarly situated daily rated/work charge basis workers working in SMS Hospital as casual labourers/Ward Boys who have been continuously working for more than one year in SMS Hospital. Such a scheme shall be executed within a period of eight months from today. 12. The petition is allowed as indicated above without any order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******