JUDGMENT 1. - In all these writ petitions common question of law is involved and common relief has been c.aimed. Hence, all the writ petitions are decided by single order. 2. In all these writ petitions the petitioners who are working on daily wage basis on various jobs since quite some time have claimed that on the basis of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" they should be given salary in regular pay scale of the posts. on which they are working and that their services may be regularised & they may be made permanent. In some of the petitions it has also been claimed that as per provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 (for short. 'IE Act') respondents should frame Standing Orders to govern their service conditions or they should be governed under the Service Rules which are framed for other employees of the Hospital/Department. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Mahendra Shah learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the writ petitions, that the subject matter of these petitions is squarely covered by the order of this Court passed on May 17.1990. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2695/89: Panchuram & another v. State of Rajasthan & others (reported in 1990(2) RLR 18 ) . It is submitted that the petitioners were appointed on different dates mentioned in each of the petitions as Sweepers Wardmate Wardboy Cook Receptionist Electrician Driver LDC and have been working on their posts since several years. It is contended t.tat all the petitioners who have been appointed on the posts mentioned above on daily wage basis are performing exactly same duties and the nature of their work is also same as is performed by a regularly appointed employee on the similar post. However they are paid on daily wage basis @. Rs. 14/- Rs. 17/- Rs. 18/- etc. per day. It is further contended that since each o the petitioners is performing similar job and functions as is performed by an employee appointed in substantive capacity therefore they are entitled to be governed by the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and should be paid regular pay scale of Ward boy/Ward mate /Sweeper/Cook /Electrician/Receptionist/ Driver/LDC. 18/- etc. per day. It is further contended that since each o the petitioners is performing similar job and functions as is performed by an employee appointed in substantive capacity therefore they are entitled to be governed by the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and should be paid regular pay scale of Ward boy/Ward mate /Sweeper/Cook /Electrician/Receptionist/ Driver/LDC. It is pointed out that S.M.S. Hospital/Mahila Chikitsalaya falls within the ambit of "industry" as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (for brevity 'the ID Act') and the petitioners are covered under the definition of "workman" as per provisions of Section (2) (s) of the ID Act. Hence they are entitled to be given benefits as are provided to the workman under the relevant statutory provisions. 4. It is contended by Mr. Ashok Parihar learned Additional Govt. Advocate that the petitioners are not discharging identical duties & functions as are discharged by employees appointed in substantive capacity on same jobs. It is also contended that petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis and are not entitled to be made permanent nor they are entitled to get same salary as is drawn by the employees appointed in substantive capacity after regular selection etc. It is also pointed out that the respondents have not indulged in any unfair labour practice as alleged by the petitioners and that the petitioners have been appointed on daily wage basis keeping in view the pressure of the work in the Hospital/Mahila Chikitsalaya and on this account also they are not entitled to draw the same salary. 5. I have heard both the parties and gone through the pleadings. The respondents have not filed reply in several writ petitions It may be pointed out that the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" has been enforced by the Apex Court in several judgments namely Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) SCC 618 , Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and others (1989)2 SCC 235 & Daily Rated Casual Labour v. Union of India and others (1988)1 SCC 122 ) . I do not find it necessary to discuss these judgments in details as same have been already discussed and the matter of Panchuram and others (supra) which squarely governs the present petitions also. I do not find it necessary to discuss these judgments in details as same have been already discussed and the matter of Panchuram and others (supra) which squarely governs the present petitions also. However it will be appropriate to give necessary details in respect of each of the petitions. 6. In Writ Petition No. 752/89. petitioners No. 3. 5. 6. & 8 were appointed as Wardmates on daily wage basis in the year 1988 and rest of the petitioners were appointed as Sweepers on daily wage basis in the year 1987-88. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that petitioners are not performing similar or identical jobs as they are given only "some specific jobs". However no details of the "specific jobs" said to have been assigned to the petitioners have been mentioned. It is also stated that petitioners were engaged as casual laboureres on daily wage basis against the temporary sanctioned posts on the fixed & agreed remuneration. Therefore they are not entitled to equal salary as is paid to the permanent employees working on the same post. 7. No details have been given of the 'specific jobs" said to be different than that performed by the employees permanently appointed on these posts nor any document has been produced in support thereof. The respondents could have easily produced Muster Roll/Duty Chart or any other document in their possession to show the difference in the nature of the works performed by the petitioners. There is, therefore no reason to disbelieve the plea of the petitioners supported by affidavit that they are performing the same duties as daily rated wardmates/sweepers as are performed by permanently appointed employees on the same post. Evidently therefore they are entitled to same salary in the regular scale as is paid to the permanently appointed employees on similar posts. 8. In Writ Petition No. 1040/89 petitioners Ashok Kumar Jagannath & Mst. Yashoda were appointed as Sweepers on daily wage basis on 13-3-88 505-88 & 1-7-88 respectively. The services of Mst. Yashoda were terminated but after filing of the writ petition she has been subsequently taken back and is working on the same post. The allegations regarding work of the petitioners not being satisfactory made in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents have been denied in the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioners. The services of Mst. Yashoda were terminated but after filing of the writ petition she has been subsequently taken back and is working on the same post. The allegations regarding work of the petitioners not being satisfactory made in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents have been denied in the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioners. There is nothing on record to show that respondents at any time found the work of any of the above-mentioned three petitioners to be unsatisfactory. I therefore do not find any force in this allegation. The petitioners have stated on oath that they are performing same duties & functions as are performed by sweepers appointed on substantive basis and are therefore entitled to get salary in the regular pay scale paid to similar permanent employees. 9. In Writ Petition No. 2828/89 Mst. Babli & Mst. Lalli were appointed as Sweeper/ Ward mates in the months of April 1988' & May 1988 respectively. No reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents in this petition. 10. In Writ Petition No. 1857/89 Mst. Munni Devi was appointed as Wardmate on November 9 1984 on salary of Rs. 75/- per month as a part-time employee. However she has stated in the petition which is supported by an affidavit that she has beet performing her duties for full time as performed by other substantively appointed persons on the same post. It is needless to say that a person cannot be paid less than the minimum salary paid to other employees working on the same post. She states that she works in both the shifts and is performing same duties & functions as performed by employees who are substantively appointed. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that in similar Writ Petition No. 1083/89 (Mst. Muli Bai v. State of Rajasthan). decided on 17-7-89 the petitioner was held to be entitled to be given minimum basic salary of the post on which the petitioner was working. In his case also the petitioner was said to have been appointed on part-time basis on salary of Rs. 75/- per month only. No reply has been filed by the the respondents. I am therefore, of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to get same salary as is paid to a substantively appointed employee on the post of wardmate. 11. 75/- per month only. No reply has been filed by the the respondents. I am therefore, of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to get same salary as is paid to a substantively appointed employee on the post of wardmate. 11. In Writ Petition No. 3570/89 which has been filed by Mst. Sita and eight ether petitioners who are working as Cook/Wardmate/Sweeper which is equivalent to Class IV servant it has been stated that all the petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis on the post of Cook/Wardmate/Sweeper in the year 1987 except petitioners No 5 & 8 who were appointed in the year 1988. The dates and the posts on which each of the petitioners was appointed have been mentioned in para 2 of the petition. No reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. All the petitioners have clearly stated in the petition which is supported by an affidavit that the nature of their work and duties are same as are performed by substantively appointed Cook/Wardmate/Sweeper. Therefore they are entitled to get salary in the regular pay scale which is paid to such employees who have been substantively appointed on such posts on which petitioners are working. 12. In Writ Petition No. 5303/89 petitioner Moola Ram was appointed as Ward-boy on daily wage basis on 45087. He is working as ward-body and performs same functions & duties as are performed by the substantively appointed employee on the post of ward-boy. Hence he is also entitled to get salary in the regular pay scale which is paid to a permanently appointed ward-boy. No reply has been filed to the petition. 13. In Writ Petition No. 736/90 it is stated that petitioner Ramu Lal is working as Ward-boy on daily wage basis since 1-9-85. No reply to the petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents. He has stated on oath that he is performing the same functions & duties as are performed by permanently appointed Ward-boy and is therefore evidently entitled to get the salary in the same pay scale. 14. In Writ Petition No. 2475/89 petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Ward boy on daily wage basis on 7-9-89 whereas petitioners No. 2 and 3 were appointed as Wardmates on 1-4-88 & 5-5-88 respectively. No reply has teen filed on behalf of the respondents. 14. In Writ Petition No. 2475/89 petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Ward boy on daily wage basis on 7-9-89 whereas petitioners No. 2 and 3 were appointed as Wardmates on 1-4-88 & 5-5-88 respectively. No reply has teen filed on behalf of the respondents. The petitioners have stated that they are performing the same duties as are performed by Ward-boy/Wardmate who are appointed on permanent basis and are therefore evidently entitled to get salary in the regular pay scale paid to permanently appointed employees on the post of ward-boy/wardmate. 15. In Writ Petition No. 678/90. the petitioner was appointed as Receptionist on daily wage basis on 22.4 87. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents. it has been stated that petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis on his own application and that he cannot be given regular appointment unless he is selected by the prescribed regular selection process. He will be considered for regular appointment as & when the selection for the same is made as per Rules. It is also stated that he is not entitled to get salary in the regular scale as paid to permanent Receptionist. The petitioner has stated on oath that he is Performing the same duties and functions as are performed by a permanently appointed Receptionist. Therefore evidently he is entitled to get the salary in the regular pay scale which is paid to a permanently appointed Receptionist. 16. In Writ Petition No. 3190/89 the petitioner was appointed as Receptionist on daily wage basis on 1.8 88. No reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner has stated on oath that he is performing the same duties and functions as are performed by regularly appointed Receptionist. He is therefore evidently entitled to get salary in the regular scale paid to permanently appointed Receptionist. 17. In Writ Petition No. 754/89 the petitioner was appointed as Electrician on daily wage basis on 1.3.88. It is given out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after filing of the writ petition his services were terminated but subsequently he was taken back and is presently working on daily wage basis. No reply has been filed to the petition by the respondents. It is given out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after filing of the writ petition his services were terminated but subsequently he was taken back and is presently working on daily wage basis. No reply has been filed to the petition by the respondents. The petitioner has stated that he is performing the same duties & function; as are performed by permanently appointed Electricians He is therefore evidently entitled to get salary in the scale which is paid to regularly appointed Electricians. 18. In Writ Petitions No. 3446/89 the petitioner was appointed on the post of driver on daily wage basis on 27.8.88 No reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner has stated on oath that he is performing same duties & functions as are performed by a permanently appointed driver. He is there fore evidently entitled to get salary in the regular pay scale as is paid to the permanently appointed driver. 19. In Writ Petition No. 2958/89 the petitioners were appointed on the post of L. D C. on daily wage basis in the year 198-87. The petitioners have stated that they are performing same duties & functions as are performed by the employees appointed permanently on post of LDC In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that the petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis for giving help in the work of regularly appointed staff and they are not performing same or identical duties. It is also stated that regular appointment on the post of LDC is given after a candidate passes the written examination which is conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) It is therefore pointed out by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the petitioners are not entitled to get same salary as is paid to permanently appointed employees on the post of LDC. It is pointed out that no document has been produced on behalf of the respondents to show that what specific functions & duties are performed by these petitioners which are said to be different from those performed by permanently appointed LDCs. Since the petitioners are appointed to work on the post of LDC itself even though on daily wage basis they are expected to perform the same functions & duties as are performed by any other LDC appointed on permanent basis. Since the petitioners are appointed to work on the post of LDC itself even though on daily wage basis they are expected to perform the same functions & duties as are performed by any other LDC appointed on permanent basis. I, therefore do not find any reason to disbelieve the petitioners that they are performing the same duties & functions which are performed by permanently appointed LDCs. The petitioners are there fore entitled to get the same salary in the regular pay scale as is paid to those persons who are appointed permanently on the post of LDC. 20. In Writ Petition No. 3750/89 the petitioner was appointed as LDC, on daily wage basis on 1-7-87. No reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner has stated on oath that he is performing the same duties & functions as are performed by permanently appointed LDC. He is therefore entitled to get similar pay as is paid to the permanently appointed LDC. 21. In Writ Petition No. 4637/89. the petitioners were appointed as LDCs on daily wage basis in the year 1987. No reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The petitioners have stated on oath that they are performing the same functions & duties as are performed by those who are permanently appointed on the post of LDCs. Evidently therefore. they are entitled to get similar salary as is paid to those appointed permanently on the post of LDCs. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so fir as the regularisation of appointment of such petitioners. who are working on the posts of Electrician /Receptionist/Driver/LDC is concerned he only claims that they should be paid salary in the regular pay scale. Even otherwise in regular appointment on these posts every candidate has to undergo a particular process for selection may be through RPSC or otherwise and only after successfully going through the same can be considered for regular appointment. 23. From all the facts & circumstances and law discussed above it is evident that the petitioners who are appointed on daily wage basis on various posts of LDC/Receptionist ; Electrician/Driver/Cook/Wardmate/Ward-boy/Sweeper are performing similar duties & functions as are performed by the permanently appointed employees on the same posts. The petitioners are therefore entitled to get salary in the regular pay scale of the posts on which they are working. 24. The petitioners are therefore entitled to get salary in the regular pay scale of the posts on which they are working. 24. It is therefore directed that in Writ Petition No. 752/89 Petitioners No. 1 Rajendra No. 2 Smt. Shanti No. 3 Smt. Pushpa No. 4 Smt. Santosh No. 5 Smt. Sheela No. 6 Smt. Sandhya No. 7 Smt. Meera No. 8 Smt. Saiju No. 9 Shri Girraj. No. 10 Smt. Prem and No.11 Smt. Gaindi; in Writ Petition No. 1040/89 Petitioners No. 1 Ashok Kumar No. 2 Jaggannath and No. 3 Smt Yashoda; in Writ Petition No. 2828/89 Petitioners No. 1 Smt. Babli and No. 2 Smt. Lalli; in Writ Petition No. 1857/89 Petitioner Munni Devi; in Writ Petition No. 3570/89 Petitioners No. 1 Smt. Sita. No. 2 Smt. Bhonri; No 3 Smt. Surajbai No. 4 Smt. Geeta No. 5 Smt. Saroj No. 6 Ladbai No. 7 Smt. Irawani No. 8 Smt. Vimla and No. 9 Smt. Geeta; in Writ Petition No. 5303/89 Petitioner Moola Ram; in Writ Petition No. 756/90 Petitioner Ramulal; in Writ Petition No. 2475/89 Petitioners No. 1 Gajpat Singh No. 2 Smt. Manbhar and No. 3 Smt. Phooli; in Writ Petition No. 678/89. Petitioner Girraj Diggiwal; in Writ Petition No. 3190/89 Petitioner Chiranji Lal; in Writ Petition No. 754/89 Petitioner Kapoor Chand Sharma; in Writ Petition No. 3446/89 Petitioner Babulal; in Writ Petition No. 2958/89 Petitioners No. 1 Umesh Kumar Sharma No. 2 Vijay Kumar Verma. No. 3 Mrs. Sobhana Radhakrishnan No. 4 Mrs. Menju Lata Jain and No. 5 Miss Nirmala Mathur; in Writ Petition No. 3750/89 Petitioner Jitendra Kumar and in Writ Petition No. 4637/89 Petitioners No. 1 Bharat Singh & No. 2 Hitesh Kumar Srivastava. shall be entitled to get minimum pay in the pay scale of regularly employed LDC/Receptionist/Electrician/Driver/Cook/Ward-boy/Ward mate/Sweeper plus D.A. from the date of filing of each of the petitions. So far as other reliefs claimed by the petitioners are concerned they shall be entitled to get the same on the analogy and directions given in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2695/89 (Pancharam & another v. State of Rajasthan & others (reported in 1990(2) RLR 18 ) decided on May 17,1990. 25. Petitions allowed as indicated above. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******