Judgment : Banerjee, J.: This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned trial Judge dated 17th November, 1992 for disposal of the writ application by the Division Bench as the ld. trial Judge was of the view that as some other matters are pending before the Division Bench the judgment of the Division Bench will have a serious impact upon the effective adjudication of the matter in dispute. Accordingly, the matter has come up before the Division Bench for disposal of writ application. The facts of this case are not in dispute The appellants writ petitioners have been working as casual labourers/workers in the godown of Food Corporation of India employed by the contractors but surprisingly till now there is no statutory minimum rates and wages for the casual workers employed in the godown and that the writ petitioner opposite parties' claim is that the FCI have also engaged casual labourers directly and not through contractors and that as the casual workers working in the godown of the FCI appointed directly by the FCI and appointed through the contractors are performing the same work and on the basis of equal pay for equal work they are entitled to equal remuneration as that of the remuneration paid by the FCI to its directly appointed casual workers. Another aspect of the matter is that Clause 24 of the appendix of the tender form and/or contract that was entered into by and between the FCI and the contractors contains this clause which is very relevant for the purpose of this case and which is as follows :- "24. For supply of casual labour as mentioned in Clause XX, Part II (24)- (i) Male labour per head per day. (ii) Male labour per head per half day As per minimum wages (upto 5 hours). fixed by the State (iii) Male labour per head per night. Government and no (iv) Female labour per bead per day. percentage is admissible (v) Female labour per head per half thereon. day (upto 5 hours). Another clause in the contract with regard to supply of casual workers which is relevant for this case is that "The contractors shall provide such number of male or female casual labourers whenever asked to do so at short notice during day or night by RM or an officer acting on his behalf. day (upto 5 hours). Another clause in the contract with regard to supply of casual workers which is relevant for this case is that "The contractors shall provide such number of male or female casual labourers whenever asked to do so at short notice during day or night by RM or an officer acting on his behalf. The payment of casual labour wage shall be not less than the minimum statutory rates fixed by the appropriate authority for material period as fixed wages per male/female casual labour per day. However, it will not entitle the contractor to claim any increase during the currency of the contract. The labour so supplied can be asked to do fumingation/nurshing, dusting spraying or pumping cyanogas with food pumps whenever necessary". The appellants writ petitioners have been appointed by respondent No.9, Sri Naresh Kumar Dutta. It is not in dispute that from time to time old contractor is going out and new contractor is coming in under the FCI but the casual workers initially appointed and attached to such godown were continuing as such and that the change of the contractors do not affect them as they are continuing as before and that existing casual workers working in the said god own should remain in spite of change of the contractors. The casual workers employed by FCI was paid Rs. 66/- per day which was increased to Rs. 70/- per day whereas the appellants writ petitioners were getting Rs. 33/- per day. For the purpose of interim order the matter came up before the Division Bench of this Court consisting of the then Chief Justice sitting with Altamas Kabir, J., and by order dated 12th May, 1992 considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (1) Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1992 SC 789 their Lordships passed the following order :- "Taking all facts and circumstances into consideration for the purpose of interim relief as prayed for on behalf of the appellant-Corporation we direct the appellant corporation to file a proper affidavit giving details in respect of each of the writ petitioners in six writ applications as to when they were engaged and how many number or days they have worked with the Corporation each year. Such affidavit shall be filed within six weeks from date. Such affidavit shall be filed within six weeks from date. It will be open to the writ petitioners-respondents to file an affidavit-in-reply to the said affidavit two weeks thereafter. In the meantime we direct the appellant-Corporations to prepare a scheme for absorption of such writ petitioners in the different writ petitions who have been working continuously for years as casual workers with the Corporation. We further direct the appellant corporation to pay the writ petitioners-respondents for each day they work with the Corporation at a rate which is payable to the regular employee of the Corporation doing same nature of work to be worked out on a daily basis. Let the application be placed for further hearing eight weeks hence". 2. In the year 1990 when the appellants were working under the contractors M/s. N. Mondal & Co. M/s. N. Mondal & Co. referred the matter to the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal on 14.11.90 and that by letter dated 17.11.90 the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bankura informed the said contractors as follows :- "With reference to his letter dated 14.11.90, he is hereby informed that till now there is no statutory minimum rates of wages for casual workers employed in the godown. Though the "employment" was added to the schedule to the M.W. Act under the Labour Department. Notification No 112- MW dated 21.6.86. Fixation of the minimum rates of wages is under consideration of the Government (Ref-labour in West Bengal, 1988 page-50). Also the order No. 1287-LW dated 7.7.1979 of the office on Spl. Duty of the LW/2W-41/78 Labour Deptt. Govt. of West Bengal is being forwarded herewith for his information regarding the wages in respect of office establishment employees. Now it is his discretion to follow whichever he may think suitable". 3. The said letter dated 7th July, 1979 addressed to the Secretary, Government of India Stationery Workers' Union by S. N. Singha, officer-in-special duty, Labour Deptt. Govt. of West Bengal was annexed. By the said letter it was informed that "I am directed to refer to your letter No. F/34/18/5/79 dated 1.6.79 on the above subject and to say that minimum rates of wages in respect of office establishments employees have not yet been fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. There is therefore, no statutory minimum rates of wages for such employees. There is therefore, no statutory minimum rates of wages for such employees. The Minimum rates of wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for employees employed in organised sector are allowed to persons employed either as a badli or on casual or temporary basis. The rate is for the job and not for the person. The nature of the employment does not in any way influence the rates of wages of casual and temporary workmen even in Government undertaking and establishments. On the basis of the aforesaid principle the daily rate of casual workers should be 1/26th of the monthly wages of Class-IV employees". 4. In this connection, it may be mentioned that the appellants-writ petitioners are getting their wages at the rates Rs. 28/- per day and a joint meeting was held before the Food Secretary. Government of West Bengal and Sri Basudev Acharyya, M.P., who was supposed to be present but did not attend the said meeting. The other persons who participated the said meeting was the Dist. Magistrate, Bankura, Addl. Dist. Magistrate, Purulia. The Food Corporation of India was represented by Senior Regional Manager, Regional Manager, District Manager and that in the said meeting it was observed. It was also decided that as discussed in a meeting with Dist. Magistrate held on 3.12.90, the Casual Labourers could be paid at the rate of Rs. 33/- per head which was considered as reasonable and the contractor suitably reimbursed for the same. It had also been decided that labourers should be paid for the days work-slips could not be issued due to staff not working. 5. RM would kindly brief my successor and send suitable instructions to all concerned. 6. With regard to the nature of the works performed by the appellants-writ petitioners as casual workers the Assistant Depott. Manager of the FCI, Bankura has issued the following certificate : "Certified that 59 casual labours are working under M R.M./F.S.D bikna since 1976. The said casual labourers are doing the job of Funigation/Brushing/dusting/spraying etc. which were actually the work of Class 4 staff. They are doing their job with satisfaction in F.C.I., and they have gathered sufficient knowledge about the work they perform as stated above." 7. The said casual labourers are doing the job of Funigation/Brushing/dusting/spraying etc. which were actually the work of Class 4 staff. They are doing their job with satisfaction in F.C.I., and they have gathered sufficient knowledge about the work they perform as stated above." 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State informed on enquiry pursuant to the request made by this Court that the State Government has not yet fixed the minimum wages for such casual workers. In view of the facts and circumstances of he case and in view of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases particularly in the case of Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1992 SC 789 the principle for equal pay for equal work is fully applicable in this case. The Supreme Court in the case of (2) Surinder Singh v Engineering-in-Chief C. P. W. D., AIR 1986 SC 584 held that "Daily rated wages workers employed for several year CPWD demanded parity in their wages, salary and allowances with those of regular and permanent employees of the Department on the basis of performing similar works. The Government and all public sector Undertakings are expected to function like model and enlightened employees and it was held that they were entitled to same benefits of equal pay for equal work." Supreme Court in the case of (3) Daily Rated Casual Labour, P & T Dept. Union of India v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2342 held that "The state cannot deny to the casual labourers the minimum pay in pay scales of the regularly employed workers even though the Government may not be compelled to extend all the benefits enjoyed by regularly recruited employees. Such denial amounts to exploitation of labour and violative of Articles 14 and 16. "Further it was also held by the Supreme Court in the case of (4) Employees of Tennery & Footwear Corpn. of India Ltd v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1367 that" the pay scale of employees in unionised cadre in 'A' Corporation of Government should be revised in way that the same are at par with the pay scales of such employees employed with the Cotton Corpn. of India when the level of posts in question in both Corporation also same and no subsequent change in duties and functions of employees in both Corporations. 8. of India when the level of posts in question in both Corporation also same and no subsequent change in duties and functions of employees in both Corporations. 8. In (5) Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corpn. reported in AIR 1990 SC 371 Supreme Court held that "Daily rated workers are entitled to equal rate at par with the persons appointed on regular basis to similar posts or discharging similar duties and are entitled to similar scale of pay and allowances revised from time to time." 9. Accordingly, we are of the view that on the basis of the materials and evidence produced before this Court and in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court on this point the order passed by the Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice and Altamas Kabir, J. dated 12th May. 1992 by way of an interim order has been passed on correct appreciation of the facts and the law on this point and accordingly, we are of the view that on the basis of the principle 'equal pay for equal work' the casual workers appointed directly by the FCI and casual workers employed by the contractors working in the same god own and same work, there is no scope for making any difference and to deny equal pay for equal work. In the instant case the contracts entered into by the FCI and the contractors provides a separate clause for the purpose of ensuring the due payment of the wages of the casual workers and the FCI had undertaken to pay the wages of the workers fixed in this behalf separately which would be determined and paid separately and that it is not a lump sum contract under which the contractors would supply labourers and that the contractors will pay at whatever rate the contractors may deem fit and proper but the Food Corporation of India wanted to ensure that the casual labourers are paid according to the wages fixed by the Government and that they are not deprived of their legitimate claim accordingly whatever amount is to be fixed for the workers the FCI had to bear the same under the agreement and that in the instant case it is clearly evident that the casual workers have been discriminated in violation of the provisions of Art. 14 of the Constitution and accordingly they are entitled to relief in this case and accordingly, FCI should pay to the appellant petitioner at the same rate the FCI paying to the regular employees of the Corporation in the same nature of work to be worked out on a daily basis with effect from March 1989. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The writ petition is also allowed. The respondent FCI is directed to pay the writ petitioner for each day work with the corporation at a pay which is equal to the pay of such Class IV staff of the FCI and that from letter dated 17th July, 1993 issued by the District Manager Food Corporation of India it appears that the contractors in question had submitted three supplementary bills on 30th May, 1992 being No. 1/NKD/CL-Suppli/FSD/BKA/dated 20.5.92; bill No.2/NKD/CL-Suppli/FSD/BKA/dated 20.5.92 and bill No. 3/NKD/CI-Suppli/FSD/ BKA/dated 20.5.92 and further one bill on July 8, 1993 being bill No. 4/NKD/Cl-Suppli/FS/BKA dated July 8, 1993 against tender item No. 24 for supply of casual labours after treating their wage as of pay of Class-IV staff w.e.f. March 1989. The respondent-Food Corporation of India is directed to sanction and pay those supplementary bills relating to the wages of writ petitioners/casual workers forthwith. 10. There will be, however, no order as to costs. 11. Mr. The respondent-Food Corporation of India is directed to sanction and pay those supplementary bills relating to the wages of writ petitioners/casual workers forthwith. 10. There will be, however, no order as to costs. 11. Mr. Achintya Sen, learned Advocate for the F. C. I. has prayed for stay of operation of the above order which is opposed by the appellant and the same is rejected. 12. Let a Plain copy of the operative portion of the above order be given to the learned Advocate for the appellant on the usual undertaking for communication. Let a xeroxed copy of the above order be given to parties on the usual undertaking. Chakraborty, J.: I agree.