JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 16.8.2001 passed in Misc. Case No. 353 of 1999 passed by the Labour Court, U.P. Kanpur Nagar. 3. Brief facts of the case are that an Adjudication Case No. 19 of 1991 was pending before the Labour Court. During the pendency of the said reference the workman was restrained from working, hence an application under Section 6-E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was moved by him before the Labour Court for adjudication of deemed reference under Section 6-F of the Act for violation of its provisions. Section 6-F of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 providing for adjudication in respect of dispute as to whether condition of service changed during the pendency of any proceedings before the Labour Court is as under : "6-F. Special for adjudication as to whether the conditions of service, etc. changed during the pendency of proceedings.—Where an employer contravenes the provisions of Section 6-E during the pendency of proceedings before a Labour Court or Tribunal, any workmen aggrieved by such contravention may make a complaint in writing in the prescribed manner, to the Labour Court or Tribunal as the case may be, and on receipt of such complaint that Labour Court or Tribunal as the case may be, shall adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it, in accordance with this Act and shall submit its award to the State Government and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly.” 4. The case was registered as Reference Case No. 188 of 1991 wherein the respondent workman has stated that he was working as a daily wager, Chaukidar, Mali, Adeshpalak since October, 1988. 5. The Labour Court by its award dated 30.9.1993 held that there was a violation of Section 6-F of the Act as such the workman was entitled to reinstatement of service as daily wager from 10.6.1991.The award dated 30.9.1993 became final as the writ petition and Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner were dismissed. 6. Adjudication case No. 19 of 1991 was in respect of regularization of services of the workman as well as other daily wagers working along with him was also decided vide award dated 15.3.95. 6. Adjudication case No. 19 of 1991 was in respect of regularization of services of the workman as well as other daily wagers working along with him was also decided vide award dated 15.3.95. It appears from the award dated 15.3.1995 that neither the services of respondent No. 2 were regularized nor the services of other daily wagers who were working along with him were regularized and their claim was rejected. 7. However, on the basis of the award dated 30.9.1993 in Reference Case No. 188 of 1991, respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 6-H(2) of the Act before the Labour Court, U.P. Kanpur claiming a sum of Rs. 46,100/- as permanent employee but the Labour Court vide its order dated 8.4.1996 in R.D. Case No. 96 of 1995 allowed only a sum of Rs. 39,800/- treating the workman as daily wager. 8. It further appears that respondent No. 2 had also filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming bonus which was registered as Misc. Case No. 190 of 1996. The aforesaid application was rejected vide order dated 6.4.1998 by the Labour Court. Respondent No. 2 also filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act claiming his wages as Tube-well operator on regular basis which was registered as Misc. Case No. 353 of 1999. The aforesaid application was allowed by the Labour Court vide order dated 16.8.2001 and is under challenge in this writ petition. 9. It is apparent from above that earlier the claim of the workman for regularization in service was rejected vide order dated 15.3.1995 in Adjudication Case No. 19 of 1991 but in Misc. Case No. 353 of 1999 under Section 33-C(2) he was directed to be paid salary of regular employee as there was no permanent and vacant post available. The claim of the workman has been rejected twice. The Labour Court in Reference No. 188 of 1991 and in R.D. case No. 96 of 1995 as well as in Misc. Case No. 190/96 rejected the claim of the workman on the ground that he was a daily wager. The claim of the workman has been rejected twice. The Labour Court in Reference No. 188 of 1991 and in R.D. case No. 96 of 1995 as well as in Misc. Case No. 190/96 rejected the claim of the workman on the ground that he was a daily wager. To my mind, no order could have been passed by the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Act for payment of salary as is paid to regular employee on basis of principles of equal pay for equal work in the aforesaid backdrop until and unless it is proved by the workman concerned that he shoulders the same responsibility as is shoulder by a regular employee that he was working on a permanent post. Even as a daily wager he is discharging the same duties as is discharged by a regular employee. 10. Law in this regard has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Jasmer Singh and others, 1997(75) FLR 776 in which it has been held for application of principles of ‘equal pay for equal work’ various dimensions of given a job are required to be considered as such dexterity that job may entail may differ from job to job. It was also held by the Apex Court that employees on daily wages cannot claim equal treatment with employees in regular service and also cannot get minimum of regular pay scales. The regularization of service is a matter of State policy. The observation made by the Apex Court in this regard is as under : "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 dimension of a given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. It is, therefore, clear that the quality of work performed by different sets of persons holding different jobs will have to be evaluated. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. It is, therefore, clear that the quality of work performed by different sets of persons holding different jobs will have to be evaluated. There may be differences in education or technical qualifications which may have a bearing on the skills which the holders bring to their job although the designation of the job may be the same." 11. To the same effect is the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Government of West Bengal v. Taruk K. Roy, ( 2004) 1 SCC 347 wherein in paragraph 14 it has been held that doctrine of equal pay for equal work would be automatically applied. 12. The petitioner is a daily wager, therefore, can be treated as a separate class. The Labour Court without discussing all various factors as stated above in Adjudication Case it could not have directed for payment of salary to the workman at par with a regular employee. 13. Admittedly, the petitioner was not appointed on any post and the Labour Court has granted him salary at par with a regular employee on the ground that when the said post is available he may be appointed on the said post. This could not have been done by the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Act or even in Adjudication case for the reason that the petitioner was not appointed on a permanent post and thus the award passed by the Labour Court appears to have been passed on surmises and conjectures. The principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be accepted even for the post of ledger clerks as has been held in the case of State of Punjab v. Devinder Singh, (1998) 9 SCC 595 . It was held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Charanjit Singh and others, (2006) 9 SCC 321 that the Court has to determine the applicability of said principle on considering all relevant facts like classification enumerated, being merit, experience, incentivisation, mode of selection/recruitment, qualifications, quality, nature, reliability of work done, responsibility entailed, regardless of nomenclature/job description or volume of output. 14. 14. Sri Siddarth, learned counsel for the respondent workman has also relied upon paragraphs 54 and 55 of the judgment rendered in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 in which it has been held that : “54. It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents. 55. In cases relating to service in the Commercial Taxes Department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in Government service with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in directing that these employees be paid salary equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in Government service with effect from the dates from which they were respectively engaged or appointed. It was not open to the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work so called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so. We are, therefore, of the view that, at best, the Division Bench of the High Court should have directed that wages equal to the salary that is being paid to regular employees be paid to those daily-wage employees with effect from the date of its judgment. Hence, that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified that it is directed that these daily wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in Government service, from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Since, they are only daily wage earners, there would be no question of other allowances being paid to them. Since, they are only daily wage earners, there would be no question of other allowances being paid to them. In view of our conclusion, that the Courts are not expected to issue directions for making such persons permanent in service, we set aside that part of the direction of the High Court directing the Government to consider their cases for regularization. We also notice that the High Court has not adverted to the aspect as to whether it was regularization or it was giving permanency that was being directed by the High Court. In such a situation the direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the State would stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts by a regular process of selection. But when regular recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in CA Nos. 3595-612 and those in the Commercial Taxes Department similarly situated. will be allowed to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for the work in the Department for a significant period of time. That would be the extent of the exercise of power by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to do justice to them.” 15. As regards Uma Devi’s case (supra) the Apex Court has clearly held that daily wagers cannot be paid other allowances as are being paid wages to regular employees and the Courts are not expected to issue directions for making such persons permanent in service and set aside the judgment of the High Court directing for considering the cases of such daily wage employees for regularization. If the High Court cannot issue a direction to consider regularization of employee in exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 226, then can the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) direct payment of regular salary of a permanent employee to a daily wager on the ground that there is no vacant or sanctioned post. 16. If the High Court cannot issue a direction to consider regularization of employee in exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 226, then can the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) direct payment of regular salary of a permanent employee to a daily wager on the ground that there is no vacant or sanctioned post. 16. To my mind, this order would not have been passed by the Labour Court as even otherwise no appointment can be directed to be made by the Labour Court de-hors the rules for recruitment even under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central), 1947 as the jurisdiction of Labour Courts or the Industrial Tribunal is excluded to that extent in view of settled position of law in this regard by the Apex Court in a stream of decisions which are binding on all Courts including Labour Courts as it has all the trapping of Courts, under Article 141 of the Constitution. 17. For the reasons stated above and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on consideration of law particularly that the cases cited by the petitioner are clearly distinguishable, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. ————