JUDGMENT - KHARCHE S.T., J.:---Rule heard finally by consent of parties. 2.By invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the State of Maharashtra and the petitioners have challenged the order dated 26-7-1991 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 409/1986, who partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners to fix the pay of respondent No. 1 as Muster Assistant, w.e.f. 23-1-1985 in the pay scale of Rs. 205/- and to pay him wages of the pay scale right from 23-1-1985 till 10-8-1987, deducting the amount of Rs. 300/- per month which has already been paid with cost of Rs. 200/-. 3.The relevant facts are as under : The respondent No. 1 initially worked with the petitioner in the year 1983 and he worked in the National Highway Division No. 49 in the capacity of Mazdoor on nominal muster roll (NMR) on daily wages as per rules till 22-1-1985. He was appointed to work as Mustering Assistant under the Employment Guarantee Scheme (E.G.S.) on a consolidated salary of Rs. 300/- per month purely on temporary basis. The service conditions were mentioned in the appointment order and his services were liable to be terminated without assigning any reason. The respondent No. 1 ultimately agreed to work on a consolidated salary of Rs. 300/- per month and he never worked as Muster Clerk on regular basis in place of the Muster Clerk. Shri Deo and that post was quite different from the post of Mustering Assistant. The respondent No. 1 was not entitled to be appointed in the post of Muster Clerk and claim pay scale of that post. Whenever the work of E.G.S. was closed, the services of the respondent No. 1 were utilised for the purpose of computation of arrears of wages of mazdoor and recording their attendance. The respondent No. 1 was transferred to Nagarjun in Ramtek tahsil on 25-9-1986 on E.G.S. work where he was paid consolidated salary of Rs. 300/per month as Mustering Assistant and after completion of E.G.S. work, his services came to be terminated on 10-8-1987. The respondent No. 1 was transferred to Nagarjun in Ramtek tahsil on 25-9-1986 on E.G.S. work where he was paid consolidated salary of Rs. 300/per month as Mustering Assistant and after completion of E.G.S. work, his services came to be terminated on 10-8-1987. 3-A.The respondent No 1 had lodged complaint under section 28 read with Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV to the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, MRTU PULP Act) against the petitioners claiming the difference in the pay scale which was applicable to Mustering Assistant. The Industrial Court on considering the evidence had come to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to receive the difference of wages according to the pay scale which was available for Mustering Assistant and consequently directed the petitioners to pay difference by order dated 26-7-1991 after deducting the amount of Rs. 300/ which was already paid. This order is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 4.The learned Additional Government Pleader contended that respondent No. 1 was employee as per the provisions of the Employment Guarantee Scheme, 1977 (for short, the E.G.S. Act) and his services were purely temporary and liable to be terminated without assinging any reason. He further contended that the services of respondent No. 1 were availed till the completion of E.G.S. work and he was rightly terminated from service on 10-8-1987. He further contended that the consolidated salary of Rs. 300/- was already paid to him and the appointment order itself would show that his appointment was on the fixed pay of Rs. 300/- per month on the work of Ghorpad Dhargaon Sirpur road under the E.G.S. He further contended that the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to claim difference in wages on account of pay scale which was available for the Mustering Assistant or Muster Clerk. He contended that the Industrial Court has ignored the provisions of E.G.S. Act and has recorded erroneous findings that the respondent No. 1 though was designated as mazdoor, he was doing the work of Muster Clerk and that he is entitled for arrears on account of difference of wages. He further contended that the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court is not sustainable in law. He further contended that the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court is not sustainable in law. 5.The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 contended that the respondent No. 1 was not the part of the E.G.S. and admittedly he was appointed as Mustering Assistant by the appointment order dated 23-1-1985 to work on the construction work of Ghorpad Dhargaon Sirpur road and the said work was undertaken by the petitioners on account of E.G.S. The learned Counsel further contended that the respondent No. 1 was not doing manual work nor paid weekly wages as was the case with the workers under the E.G.S. but paid monthly wages and performing supervisory work, and therefore, the Industrial Court rightly allowed the complaint partly and directed payment on account of difference of wages as per the pay scale which was available to the Mustering Assistant. He contended that there is absolutely no reason to deny the pay scale of Mustering Assistant, i.e. Rs. 205-5-250-7-285-10-305-Extn.-10-385 on the principle of equal pay for equal work. In support of these submissions he relied on the decision of this Court in the case of (S.N. Ahirrao v. Dy. Engineer, P.W.D., Dhule)1, 1991(3) Bom.C.R. 593 . 6.I have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as Mustering Assistant temporarily on the fixed pay of Rs. 300/- per month on the work of Ghorpad Dhargaon Sirpur road under E.G.S. and on conditions that his services were likely to be terminated at any time without assigning any reasons thereof and in case he desires to leave the job, he has to give one months notice to the appointing authority well in advance failing which one months salary will be forfeited. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No. 1 was initially employed in the year 1983 and he worked in the National Highway Division No. 49 in the capacity of Mazdoor on nominal muster roll on daily wages as per Rules till 22-1-1985. However, it would reveal that since 23-1-1985 the respondent No. 1 was appointed as Mustering Assistant and his services were utilised for the purpose of computing the arrears of wages of Mazdoor and recording their attendance. However, it would reveal that since 23-1-1985 the respondent No. 1 was appointed as Mustering Assistant and his services were utilised for the purpose of computing the arrears of wages of Mazdoor and recording their attendance. He was required to perform the duties of Mustering Assistant and he was transferred to Nagarjun in Ramtak tahsil on 25-9-1986 on E.G.S. work where he was paid consolidated salary of Rs. 300/- per month as Mustering Assistant and after completion of E.G.S. work, his services were terminated on 10-8-1987. 7.What is relevant to note is that the respondent No. 1 was not doing any manual work nor paid weekly wages as was the case with the workers under E.G.S., but he was paid consolidated wages of Rs. 300/- per month from 23-1-1985 and he also performed supervisory work like computation of arrears of wages of Mazdoor and recording their attendance. In such circumstances, the learned Counsel for the respondent has rightly relied on the decision of this Court in Subhash Narayan Ahirrao v. Dy. Engineer, P.W.D. Sub-Division, Dhule another, 1991(3) Bom.C.R. 593 , wherein it has been observed in para 10 that; "Unfortunately, a careful examination of the provisions of the Act does not support the submission advanced on behalf of the State. Apart from the generality of provisions, section 8 of the Act very clearly indicates that it covers adult persons residing in rural areas who are willing to do unskilled manual work. There can be no dispute about the fact that the submissions advanced by Ms. Dutta to the effect that the petitioner was not doing any manual work and furthermore, that he was neither paid daily wages or weekly wages as was the case with the workers under the Employment Guarantee Scheme, but was paid a monthly salary and was performing the supervisory functions would cumulatively lead to the irresistible conclusion that he was not part of the Employment Guarantee Scheme as wrongly sought to be contended. The provisions of that Act would, therefore, not be applicable in the petitioners case. The provisions of that Act would, therefore, not be applicable in the petitioners case. 8.I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by this Court in the aforesaid decision which is clearly applicable to the facts and circumstance of the present case because here also the respondent No. 1 was not doing any manual work after 23-1-1985 and he was assigned the duties of Mustering Assistant and consequently he used to compute the arrears of wages of Mazdoor and he used to record their attendance. He was not being paid daily wages like other Mazdoors or workers who were employed by the petitioners on the E.G.S. work and in such circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contentions of the learned A.G.P. that the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court is incorrect, illegal or improper. 9.The Industrial Court has considered the evidence and recorded finding that the respondents have admitted in their written statement that on 23-1-1985 the respondents issued an order appointing the complainant on consolidated salary of Rs. 300/- per month under the E.G.S. However, according to them this was done at the request of the complainant and the complainant accepted the job willingly without any prejudice. The Industrial Court recorded finding that even if the say of petitioners is to be accepted as gospel truth still the act of the petitioners to extract work from the complainant as a Mustering Assistant and paying him consolidated salary of Rs. 300/- per month only is not correct and in that view of the matter, the complainant respondent No. 1 was entitled to the difference in the wages as per the pay scale which was available to the Mustering Assistant. Admittedly, the pay scale which was available to the Mustering Assistant was Rs. 205-5-250-7-285-10-305-Extn.-10-385. 10.On close scrutiny of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case has been made out by the petitioners warranting interference into the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court and consequently the petition is dismissed with costs. Rule discharged. -----