ORDER : P.D. Dinakaran, J.—W.P. Nos. 9937 and 11051 to 11057 of 1994 are filed by the Management challenging the award dated January 19, 1993 made in C.P. Nos. 109/92, 114/92, 113/ 92, 115/92. 116/92, 117/92, 119/92 and 120/92 made u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ordering for equal pay for equal work to the second respondent in the respective writ petitions, who are admittedly working as Junior Bank Inspectors as that of the other Junior Bank Inspectors who are governed under a settlement entered into by the petitioner-Management u/s 12(3) of the Act. 2. W.P. No. 10561 of 1995 is filed by the workman challenging the dismissal of the claim petition made u/s 33-C(2) on the ground of laches. 3. Ms. Rita Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the management in these writ petitions, contends that equal pay for equal work cannot be claimed u/s 33-C(2) of the Act unless the amount due to the workman is determined in appropriate proceedings under Section. 10(1) of the Act. In this regard, she places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in The Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. P.S. Rajagopalan etc., AIR 1964 SC 743 and Director General (Works), C.P.W.D. Vs. Ashok Kumar and Others, (1999) 9 SCC 167 : 4. Per contra, Mr. Y. Jyothzh Chander, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 10561 of 1995 and for 2nd respondent in W.P. Nos. 11051 to 11054, 11056 and 11057 of 1994 and respondents 3 to 7 in W.P. No. 11053 of 1994, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Director General (Works), CPWD v. Ashok Kumar (supra) contends that the award passed by the first respondent for equal pay for equal work is maintainable u/s 33-C(2) of the Act in view of the fact that the claim is based on the undisputed status of the workmen on par with that of the similarly placed Junior Bank Inspectors, who are covered under the settlement made u/s 12(3) of the Act entered into by the Management. 5. 5. It is true that, where an industrial dispute arises between the employees acting collectively and their employers, they must be adjudicated upon in the manner prescribed by the Act, as for instance, by reference u/s 10(1) of the Act, which cannot be brought within the purview of Section 33-C(2) as held in Central Bank of India v. Rajagopalan (supra). 6. Similarly, as held in Director General (Works) v. Ashok Kumar (supra) the impugned due claimed by the petitioner u/s 33-C(2) of the Act has to be adjudicated, or otherwise, the claim itself is not sustainable u/s 33-C(2) of the Act for the recovery of such benefits/amounts. 7. But where the status of a class of persons is not disputed, as in the instant case, as Junior Bank Inspectors and the nature of work and responsibilities are also not disputed, no further distinction may be made to justify the disparity in wages between the two classes merely on the basis that those who are paid higher wage are governed under a settlement entered into by the management u/s 12(3) of the Act. 8. What the law requires is "equal pay for equal work." Once it is satisfied that the petitioners are equally placed with other Junior Bank Inspectors who are covered under the settlement entered into with the Management u/s 12(3) of the Act who are getting higher wages, the petitioners are entitled to "equal pay for equal work." as there cannot be any distinction on the basis of Section 12(3) statement inasmuch as where the nature of work and responsibilities undisputedly remain the same, nothing more is required to be adjudicated u/s 10(1) of the Act as held in Director General (Works) v, Ashok Kumar (supra) that a claim petition u/s 33-C(2) for imparity in wages by the daily wage workers of CPWD with regular and permanent employees employed for identical work is maintainable in law. 9. Applying the above ratio laid down in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. 9. Applying the above ratio laid down in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak and Another, (1995) 1 SCC 235 and Director General (Works) CPWD v, Ashok Kumar (supra), I am of considered opinion that the claim of the workmen for parity of wages is maintainable law, and hence, the impugned awards are well within the jurisdiction of the first respondent and the wage, being a continuous cause of action, and the claim for equal pay for equal work is more so, such claim cannot be rejected on the ground of laches as held in the impugned order dated January 12, 1995 made in C.P. No. 114/92 on the file of the first respondent in 10561 of 1995, the same is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders. 10. In the result. W.P. Nos. 9937 and 11051 to 11057 of 1994 are dismissed and W.P.No 10561 of 1995 is allowed and the matter is remitted to the first respondent therein for passing appropriate further orders. No Costs.