( 1 ) BY this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the validity of the award dated 10. 10. 1995 whereby Industrial Tribunal No. 1 directed the petitioner to give pay scales to its employees of general wing as being given by DESU to its employees. ( 2 ) WORKERS union of the MCD raised an industrial dispute demanding the same pay scales as being given to the employees of DESU. The following dispute was referred for adjudication to industrial Tribunal:-"whether the demand of the workmen working in the Electrical Department (General wing) of Municipal Corporation of Delhi to grant the pay scale and allowances at par with the employees of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking is justified and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect. " ( 3 ) THE industrial Tribunal noted that DESU was earlier a wing of MCD and the employees of General Wing, MCD, raised a demand claiming same pay scale as being given to the employees of electrical department of MCD i. e. DESU. It was agreed that this demand shall be referred for adjudication, hence the above reference. MCD contested the claim of the General Wing for grant of same pay scales as being given to the employees of DESU, on the ground that DESU was a commercial unit and the pay scale being given to the employees of commercial unit cannot be compared with the employees of General Wing. MCD had its own pay scale and MCD was not bound to adopt pay scale prevalent in the DESU or other bodies. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal in its judgment noted that doctrine of 'equal pay equal work' was well enshrined in the Constitution and DESU was only a wing of MCD designated as Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking. While DESU generated power for mass supply, employees of MCD maintained street lights on roads and inside hospitals. Designation of workmen in MCD and DESU was similar i. e. like fitter, wireman etc. Qualification for the posts in DESU and MCD for different sets of workmen was similar. The employees of MCD doing maintenance work had to work on live main up to 440 volts. The pay scale being given to the employees of DESU cannot be denied to the employees of MCD on the ground that DESU was a commercial organisation. Qualification for the posts in DESU and MCD for different sets of workmen was similar. The employees of MCD doing maintenance work had to work on live main up to 440 volts. The pay scale being given to the employees of DESU cannot be denied to the employees of MCD on the ground that DESU was a commercial organisation. Tribunal further observed that financial position of the MCD was neither healthy nor strong so the plea of the MCD that DESU was a commercial wing does not stand and Tribunal directed that same pay scales be given to the employees of MCD as were being given to the employees of the DESU. ( 5 ) IN the entire Award, the Tribunal had not compared nature of work being done by persons working at different posts of MCD and different posts of DESU, nor the Tribunal compared the qualifications for different posts of MCD and desu, or the mode of recruitment, for different posts of DESU and MCD. Tribunal has also not compared the responsibility put on the employees of each post of DESU with the equivalent post in MCD. ( 6 ) IN a recent decision State of Haryana Vs. Charanjeet " 2006 1 LLJ 43, full Bench of Supreme Court surveyed all previous decisions on the point of "equal pay for equal work" and after surveying all decisions, Supreme Court held that the rulings in cases e. g. State of Haryana Vs. Jasmer Singh- AIR 1997 sc 1788 ; Orissa University of Technical and Anr Vs. Manoj Kumar Mohanty " 2003 (5) SCC 188 and Tarun Kumar Roi Vs. Government of West Bengal- 2004 (1) SCC 346, laid down the correct law. Supreme Court observed that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" has no mechanical application in every case. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who were left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. Supreme Court also held that in service matters, merit or experience can be a proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay in order to promote efficiency in administration. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. Supreme Court also held that in service matters, merit or experience can be a proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay in order to promote efficiency in administration. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. The very fact that the person has not gone through the process of recruitment may itself, in certain cases make a difference. Supreme Court in para 17 of State of Haryana Vs. Charanjeet " 2006 1 LLJ 43, observed as under:-"17. Having considered the authorities and the submissions, we are of the view that the authorities in the case of Jasmer Singh (supra), Tilak Raj (supra), Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology (supra) and Tarun K. Roy (supra) lay down the correct law. Undoubtedly, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of law. But equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" has no mechanical application in every case. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who were left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In service matters, merit or experience can be a proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay in order to promote efficiency in administration. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. The very fact that the person has not gone through the process of recruitment may itself, in certain cases make a difference. If the educational qualifications are different, then also the doctrine may have no application. Even though persons may do the same work, their quality of work may differ. Where persons are selected by a selection Committee on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority a higher pay scale granted to such persons who are valued by competent authority cannot be challenged. A classification based on difference in educational qualifications justified a difference in pay scales. Where persons are selected by a selection Committee on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority a higher pay scale granted to such persons who are valued by competent authority cannot be challenged. A classification based on difference in educational qualifications justified a difference in pay scales. A mere nomenclature designating a person as say a carpenter or a craftsman is not enough to come to the conclusion that he is doing the same work as another carpenter or craftsman in regular service. The quality of work which is produced may be different and even the nature of work assigned may be different. It is not just a comparison of physical activity. The application of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work. There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities made a difference. Thus, normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. These are not matters where a writ Court can lightly interfere. Normally, a party claiming equal pay for equal work should be required to raise a dispute in this regards. In any event the party who claims equal pay for equal work has to make necessary averments and prove that all things are equal. Thus, before any direction can be issued by a Court, the Court must first see that there are necessary averments and there is a proof. If the High Court, is on basis of material placed before it, convinced that there was equal work of equal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled it may direct payment of equal pay for the date of the filing of the respective writ petition. In all these cases, we find that the High Court has blindly proceeded on the basis that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies without examining any relevant factors. In all these cases, we find that the High Court has blindly proceeded on the basis that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies without examining any relevant factors. " ( 7 ) IN view of the above law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is clear that in order to apply doctrine of "equal pay for equal work", the Court has to take into account the quality of work being performed by different sets of persons holding different posts in two departments or organizations and the work of each post has to be evaluated. The Court has also to consider the nature of work being done by two departments. There are inherent discrepancies in comparing/ evaluating the work of different persons in different organizations or even in the same organization. A mere nomenclature of designation of a person was not enough to come to the conclusion that he was doing the same work as another similarly designated person. It is not just a comparison of physical activities. The application of principle of "equal work for equal pay" requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. An accuracy and dexterous that job may entail may differ from job to job. Normally the Court should not enter into the area of comparison. Nature of work and job in two departments should be left to be evaluated by an expert body. However, even if a Court enter upon this exercise, the Court must take into account all aspects of the two departments including the nature of work and then arrive at a conclusion whether the two posts were meant for the same work and should have the same pay scale. Strangely enough, in this case the Tribunal has not entered into this exercise. The Tribunal arrived at the conclusion only on the ground that DESU was a department of MCD and since it was a department of MCD and the nomenclature was similar and qualifications also similar, therefore, the two sets of employees were entitled to same pay scale. Tribunal ignored the fact that the DESU was involved in generation, transmission and distribution of the electricity. Employees working in the work of generation, transmission and distribution required high skill and were working in a more sensitive and risk involved department. Tribunal ignored the fact that the DESU was involved in generation, transmission and distribution of the electricity. Employees working in the work of generation, transmission and distribution required high skill and were working in a more sensitive and risk involved department. Electricity is generated at a high voltage say 11000 volts and is also transmitted at very high voltage and then voltage is steped down for distribution. A fitter working in DESU may have to be involved in working on turbines or sophisticated equipments of electricity generation, while a fitter in MCD maybe just fitting nuts and bolts at an electricity pole. ( 8 ) I consider that Tribunal could not have bypassed the entire job of comparison of work being done by holder of similar posts in two departments in order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the nature of work being performed by persons of two departments was same, the value of the work and the quality of work of each post etc was same or not. In fact Tribunal should have asked for the help of some experts in order to compare the work of two departments and to come at a conclusion whether the work being performed was similar or not. Such references cannot be decided like any other dispute referred to the Labour Court, but decision has to be based on objective assessment of different aspects of the posts held by claimant and equivalent post. For this, the Tribunal has to Act like a Committee and call for all records before it to rule out collusion between the employees of two department. ( 9 ) THE Tribunal observed that MCD had not given any evidence. The onus to prove that respondents were entitled to same pay scales as being given to employees of DESU was on the respondent and not on the MCD. Tribunal wrongly held that MCD was to prove that work was different. No material was brought on record by the respondents to show that two posts in DESU and MCD were having the same nature of work. ( 10 ) I consider that the Award given by the Tribunal giving same pay scales as applicable to DESU at that time to the employees of MCD is perverse and is without basis, so the same is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. No orders as to costs.