JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner may be made permanent on the post of peon and regular pay scale may also be given to him. A prayer has also been made that the service conditions should have been regularised by standing orders as per provisions of the Industrial. Employment Standing Order Act or in the Service Rules, which are framed for other employees of the same department but the same are not so governed. 2. The petitioner was appointed on daily wages basis in March 1987. The daily wages were increased from time to time. His services were terminated and by order dated 2.1.1991 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition. No. 2089/89 the order terminating the services was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be taken back. Since then it is submitted that the petitioner is working only daily wages have been paid. The claim is made that the petitioner is discharging the same and identical job which has been performed by a permanent peon, and the only plea which has been raised and pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner should be given the same pay scale as is being paid to the peons. It is submitted that the continuation of the petitioner on daily wages is an unfair labour practice and the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are violated. 3. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the matter is not governed by the Industrial Disputes Act and the relief is restricted for equal pay on the basis of equal work performed. 4. The respondents have come with the plea that the petitioner has worked for 394 days and on his own will stopped coming to work. He was taken back in view of the judgment given by this court and is being paid wages on daily wages basis. It is stated that the work of the petitioner was only critically scrutinised as to whether it was satisfactory or not and he was engaged for specific work and is not performing the duties identical to that of regularly selected Class IV employees. It is stated that the work of the petitioner was only critically scrutinised as to whether it was satisfactory or not and he was engaged for specific work and is not performing the duties identical to that of regularly selected Class IV employees. It is further stated that the regularly appointed employees are assigned work and responsibility whereas the daily wagers are engaged as and when the work load increases and other employees engaged on daily wages basis are not accountable to the department. They are also not generally subjected to any disciplinary action. It was also stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the facts of the present case are disputed one and the writ petition should not be entertained where such a disputed questions of fact are involved. 5. I have considered over the matter. In the case of State of West Bengal and others v. Hari Narayan Bhowal and others, (1994) 4 SCC 78 , the decision of Delhi Veterinary Assn. v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 1 was taken into consideration where it was observed as under : "The degree of skill, strain of work, experience involved, training required, responsibility undertaken, mental and physical requirements, disagreeableness of the task, hazard attendant on work and fatigue involved are, according to the Third Pay Commission, some of the relevant factors which should be taken into consideration in fixing pay scales. The method of recruitment, the level at which the initial recruitment is made in the hierarchy of service of cadre, minimum educational and technical qualifications prescribed for the post, the nature of dealings with the public, avenues of promotion available and horizontal and vertical relativity with other jobs in the same service or outside are also relevant factors." 6. The decision in the case of State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia (198) 1 SCC 121 was also considered and it was found that where two posts are equal or should carry the equal pay, depends on several factors. It does not depend just upon either the nature of work of the volume of work done. Primarily it requires among others, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. The quantity of work may be the same but the quality may be different. That cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. It does not depend just upon either the nature of work of the volume of work done. Primarily it requires among others, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. The quantity of work may be the same but the quality may be different. That cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission, who would be the best judges, to evaluate the nature of duty, responsibility and all relevant factors. It was observed in State of West Bengal v. Hari Narain (referred to above) as under : "It need not be impressed that the principle of `equal pay for equal work' can be enforced only after the persons claiming satisfy the court that not only the nature of work is identical but in all other respects they belong to the same class and there is no apparent reason to treat equals as unequals. Unless a very clear case is made out and the court is satisfied that the scale provided to a group of persons on the basis of the material produced before it amounts to discrimination without there being any justification, the court should not take upon itself the responsibility of fixation of scales of pay, especially when the different scales of pay have been fixed by Pay Commission or Pay Revision Committees, having person as members who can be held to be experts in the field and after examining all the relevant material. It need not be emphasised that in the process undertaken by the court, an anomaly in different services may be introduced, of which the court may not be conscious, in the absence of all the relevant materials being before it. Till the claimants satisfy on material produced, that they have not been treated as equals within the parameters of Article 14, courts should be reluctant to issue any writ or direction to treat them equal, particularly when a body of experts has found then not to be equal." 7. Another decision of State of West Bengal v. Madan Mohan Sen, 1993 Supp. Another decision of State of West Bengal v. Madan Mohan Sen, 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 243 was also referred and it was observed that it was pointed out in that case that merely because the academic qualifications and physical requirements of both are similar or that the Agragamies are also given certain fire-fighting training alongwith other training, it cannot be said that they perform similar duties, functions and responsibilities as the Fireman. In the case of Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521 the claim for equal pay by a group of Pharmacists was rejected saying that the classification made by a body of experts after full study and analysis of work, should not be disturbed except for strong reasons which indicate that the classification made was unreasonable. 8. With regard to Equal Pay for Equal Work, the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Pramod Bhartiya, 1992(5) SLR 643 has taken into consideration the provisions of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976. The definition of equal pay for equal work both for man and woman under the said Act was as under : "Some work or work of a similar nature means work in respect of which the skill, effort and responsibility required are the same, when performed, under similar working conditions, by a man or woman and the difference, if any, between the skill, effort and responsibility required of a man and those required of a woman are not of practical importance in relation to the terms and conditions of employment." 9. It was considered for the purpose of claiming equal pay for equal work, the duties, functions and responsibility should also be equal and the workman has to establish that similar scale offered and responsibility was involved therein. No facts have been stated by the petitioner in his writ petition and whatever the facts are sated they have been disputed. There is a remedy provided under the Industrial Disputes Act and if the remedy could not be availed under the Industrial Disputes Act, such a dispute can be raised before the Civil Court. In the present matter, since the facts are not admitted one on the basis of which any decision could be given, I consider it proper not to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction. 10. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy.Writ Petition dismissed. *******