JUDGMENT : S.C. Parija, J. - This writ petition is directed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar dated 26.10.2002, holding that the,claim of the Workers Union, opposite party No. 1, for equal pay for the post of Junior Impositors, with that of the post of Layoutman-cum-Retoucher under the Petitioner-management is legal and justified and they are entitled to the same salary as that of the Layoutman-cum-Retoucher from the date of the reference. 2. The Workers Union raised industrial dispute claiming that the Jr. Impositors employed under the Director, Text Book Production and Marketing, are entitled to the pay at par with the pay of Layoutman-cum-Retouchers employed under the same directorate. The dispute was taken up for conciliation and the same having ended in failure, the State Government in the Labour & Employment Department referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, for adjudication. The terms of the dispute were as follows: Whether the demand of the Union claiming equal pay for the post of Junior Impositors of Text Book Production and Marketing with that of the post of Layout man -cum-Retoucher is legal and/ or justified? If so, what should be the details ? 3. The case of the Workers Union, opposite party No. 1, before the Industrial Tribunal was that in the Directorate of Text Book Production and Marketing there are four posts of Jr. Impositors out of which, two persons namely, Shri Minaketan Padhi and Bauribandhu Pradhan were direct recruits and the other two namely, Nrusingh Ch. Naik and Raghabananda Ranjit were holding the post by promotion. The requisite qualification for the post of Jr. Impositor is Matriculation with technical training in Printing Technology and the two incumbents namely, Shri Minaketan Padhi and Bauribandhu Pradhan having the requisite qualification were continuing in the organization of the management since 1979. It was pleaded that the prescribed qualification for the post of Layoutman-cum-Retoucher is Diploma in off set Lithography with specialization in Retouching. The incumbents, Shri N. Naik and Shri R. Ranjit were not qualified to hold such posts, as they were non-matriculates and were given promotion from the post of Plate Makers. It was further pleaded by the Workers Union that the nature of duty of both the posts, i.e., Jr. Impositor and Layout man-cum Retoucher is same and similar and despite the equality in their qualification and nature of duty, the Jr. It was further pleaded by the Workers Union that the nature of duty of both the posts, i.e., Jr. Impositor and Layout man-cum Retoucher is same and similar and despite the equality in their qualification and nature of duty, the Jr. Impositors are getting lower pay scale than the Layoutman-cum-Retoucher, inasmuch as, the post of Jr. Impositor carries the pay scale of Rs. 800-1l50, whereas the post of Layoutman-cum-Retoucher carries the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300. Accordingly the Workers Union demanded equal pay for the post of Jr. Impositor with that of the Layoutman-cum-Retoucher. The management sought clarification from the Director of Printing, Stationery and Publication, Cuttack, who vide his letter dated 18.08.1984 clarified the issue and recommended to consider the case of Jr. Impositors but the management denied the benefits of equal pay claimed by the Union, which according to the Union was arbitrary and discriminatory. Accordingly it was pleaded that there being no difference in the nature of duties of Jr. Impositors and Layout man-cum Retoucher, the claim of the Workers Union for equal pay scale of Jr. Impositors with that of the Layoutman-cum-Retoucher is legal and justified. 4. The management in its written statement filed before the Labour Court referred to Rule 9 of the Orissa Government Text Book Press Industrial Employees (Classification, Method of Recruitment and other Conditions of Service) Rules, 1988, wherein the nomenclature of posts, channel of promotion, job description, qualification, training, skill and experience has been prescribed. Accordingly it is submitted that the nature of duties of the Jr. Impositors and that of the Layoutman-cum-Retoucher are separate and distinct as per the chart showing the job description, quoted below: The duties of the Layout man -cum - Retoucher ----------------- The layoutman-cum-Retoucher will guide the Plate Maker and Asst. Plate Maker in preparing quality offset plates, makes lay outs in case of complicated plates involving multi colour close register work, should be able to undertake all kinds of plates making work both qualitatively and quantitatively, using patches and dot percentage in plates. The duties of Jr. Impositors ---------------- To lay down the composed pages in position according to certain scheme and lock them up in a chase properly so that when printed and folded the pages will come in proper sequence and locked up forms will print well on the machine. 5. It was further pleaded by the management that, the Jr. The duties of Jr. Impositors ---------------- To lay down the composed pages in position according to certain scheme and lock them up in a chase properly so that when printed and folded the pages will come in proper sequence and locked up forms will print well on the machine. 5. It was further pleaded by the management that, the Jr. Impositor only imposes plates of Rotafolio machine and in that process no chemicals are used. Whereas, in the making of offset plates use of chemicals is a must and this work is executed by Layoutman-cum-Retoucher. Hence, while the Jr. Impositor performs a skilled job, the work of a Layoutman-cum-Retoucher belongs to a highly skilled category. It was further pleaded by the management that the Layoutman-cum-Retoucher in addition to his duties also guides and supervises Plate Makers and Asst. Plate Makers, which is not done by the Jr. Impositors. Further the qualification for the post of Layoutman-cum-Retoucher is Diploma in Lithography with specialization in re-touching with seven years experience, whereas, the qualification prescribed for Jr. Impositor is Matriculation with National Trade Certificate in letter press printing from any recognized institute. Accordingly the management pleaded that there was no similarity of work performed by two categories of posts and that the duties of both the jobs/posts are distinct and different. Accordingly it was pleaded by the management that as the two posts are not identical and there is no similarity in the nature of work or the quality or quantity of such work of the two posts, they have different pay scale, which cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified. Accordingly the management pleaded that the Jr. Impositors are not entitled to the same pay scale as that of Layoutman-cum-Retoucher. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the work performed by Jr. Impositors and Layoutman-cum-Retoucher are similar/identical in nature? 2. Whether the demand of the Union claiming equal pay for the post of Junior Impositors of Text Book Production and Marketing with that of the post of Layout Man-cum-Re-Toucher is legal and/or justified? If so, what should be the details ? 7. The learned Tribunal considered the oral evidence of W.W. No. l, who deposed that the qualification for the post of Layoutman-cum-Retoucher is non-matric and one Rabindranath Sinha is working as a Layoutman-cumRetoucher. The said witness deposed that the duty.of Jr. If so, what should be the details ? 7. The learned Tribunal considered the oral evidence of W.W. No. l, who deposed that the qualification for the post of Layoutman-cum-Retoucher is non-matric and one Rabindranath Sinha is working as a Layoutman-cumRetoucher. The said witness deposed that the duty.of Jr. Impositor is plate making for Rotafolio machine, layout of etching plates on aluminium sheets by graphic art and imposing scheme and registration on the Rota folio machine. The duty of the Layoutman-cum-Retoucher is to layout film pages on transparent sheets by graphic art and imposing scheme and in the process of their work, the Jr. Impositors as well as the Layoutman-cum-Retoucher do not use any chemicals injurious to health. He further deposed that the technical skill applied for the work of Jr. Impositor and the Layoutman-cum-Retoucher is the same and both of them do the printing work of similar nature. Therefore, there being no difference or distinction in the nature of their work, Jr. Impositor is entitled to the same pay scale with that of the Layoutman-cum-Retoucher. 8. In the cross-examination the said witness (W.W. No. l) denied that the Jr. Impositors do not prepare the Rota folio plates and that the Jr. Impositor is not a supervisory post, whereas the Layoutman-cum-Retoucher supervises the work of Plate Makers and Asst. Plate Makers. He also denied the suggestion of the management that the work of Layoutman-cum-Retoucher is of much higher responsibility. 9. The witness for the management (M.W. No. 1), In-his evidence stated that the layout and imposing work come under one scheme and apart from other works, the Layoutman-cum-Retoucher supervises the work of Plate Makers and Asst. Plate Makers. He stated that the Jr. Impositors do not do the plate making. He further stated that there is no transfer from the Layout section to the Imposition section or vice versa. He deposed that the work of Impositor is different than that of the Layoutman-cum-Retoucher, inasmuch as, a Layoutman-cum-Retoucher can only 'work on photographic film which the Impositor cannot do. During his cross-examination, he admitted that the plate making is required for both layout and retouching and also for imposing and there are separate staffs in the Layout section for plate making. He also admitted that for imposing there are no separate Plate Makers. He denied the suggestion that the work of Impositors and that of Layoutman-cum-Retoucher is same and similar. 10. He also admitted that for imposing there are no separate Plate Makers. He denied the suggestion that the work of Impositors and that of Layoutman-cum-Retoucher is same and similar. 10. The other witness for the management (M.W. No. 2), who is working as a Etcher in the Block Making Section of the management, deposed that the plate is prepared by them and thereafter the Impositors do the imposition work. 11. The learned Tribunal on an analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties came to find that in view of the fact that the Impositors are required to do the plate making work for the Rota folio machines besides other duties, as stated by W.W. No. 1, the management ought to have examined a Plate Maker or Asst. Plate Maker whose evidence would have indicated that at no point of time the Impositors are required to do the plate making work. The evidence of the Etcher (M.W. No. 9", whose job is basically etching is of no assistance to the management. Further M.W. No. 2 in his cross-examination has admitted that the cost of printing in offset process and imposing process is the same. The learned Tribunal also found from the documentary evidence produced (Exts.l to 1/5) that both Minaketan Padhi and Bauribandhu Pradhan, the two Jr. Impositors, are Graduates and they have passed trade test in Printing Technology. 12. Considering the evidence of the parties both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal came to hold as follows: It is the admitted case of the parties that the Jr. Impositors as well as the Layoutman-cum-Retoucher are guided by some set of Rules and as per the said Rules some differences are there in the working pattern of the Jr. Impositors and the Layout-man-cum-Retoucher. The evidence adduced in the case, however, discloses that the job of Jr. Impositors and the Layout-man-cum-Retoucher come under one scheme and that the technical skill required for both the jobs is equal. The market value of both the products as well as the cost of printing in the off set process and Imposing process are the same. It is also the admitted position that the members of the second party-union now holding the post of Impositors have higher educational as well as technical qualification than the person now holding the post of Layout-man-cumRetoucher, who is a non -matriculate having no technical background. It is also the admitted position that the members of the second party-union now holding the post of Impositors have higher educational as well as technical qualification than the person now holding the post of Layout-man-cumRetoucher, who is a non -matriculate having no technical background. There being clear cut evidence that the Jr. Impositors are discharging the same functions as that of the Layout-man-cum-Retoucher, obviously they are entitled to the same salary as per the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaipal v. State of Haryana (supra) despite the fact that there is absence of complete identity in the working pattern of both the sets of employees. 13. Accordingly the learned Tribunal proceeded to hold that the claim of the Workers Union for equal pay for the post of Jr. Impositors with that of the Layout-man-cum-Retoucher is legal and justified and the two Jr. Impositors are entitled to the same salary as that of the Layout-man-cum-Retoucher from the date of the reference i.e. 15.2.2000. 14. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the nature of job of Layout-man-cum-Retoucher being highly skilled carrying higher responsibility and the qualification for such posts having been prescribed as Diploma in Lithography with specialization in Re-touching with seven years experience, a separate pay scale has been prescribed for such post. Hence in view of the nature of work of the two posts, qualification, recruitment and line of promotion, there is no similarity in the said two posts and therefore the claim of equal pay for equal work does not arise. The scale of pay of Impositor is Rs. 2650-4000, whereas the pay scale of Layout-man-cum-Retoucher is Rs. 4750-7000. 15. It is further stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that normal way for filling up the post of Layout-man-cum-Retoucher is by promotion or direct recruitment. Promotion is made from out of the post of Plate Maker, on the basis of their suitability. As this is a highly technical post, the Plate Makers who are found suitable, are given promotion to the post of Layout-man-cum Retoucher and if no suitable Plate Makers are found, the said post is to be filled up by direct recruitment. For such direct recruitment, a candidate should be Diploma holder in Offset Lithography with specialization in Retouching and should have seven years experience. For such direct recruitment, a candidate should be Diploma holder in Offset Lithography with specialization in Retouching and should have seven years experience. Hence the question of considering the Impositor for promotion to the post of Layout-man-cum-Retoucher does not arise. The Impositors, who have basically undergone Apprenticeship Training in letter press trade are not given training in offset trade, which is the work of Layout-man-cum-Retoucher. For direct recruitment to the post of Layout-man cum-Retoucher, Shri Minaketan Padhi and Bauribandhu Pradhan were not considered because they are not Diploma Holders in Offset Lithography having specialization in Retouching with seven years experience. Shri R.N. Sinha, though a non-Matriculate, he worked as a Plate Maker for a long period of time and keeping in view his experience, he was- promoted to the post of Layout-man-cumRetoucher. Accordingly it is submitted that Shri R.N. Sinha who was promoted on 05.01.1983, had the requisite experience in Retouching and Plate Making and although he was a non-Matriculate, the Director, Text Book Production and Marketing, Bhubaneswar, considering the experience and expertise of Shri Sinha, granted him promotion to the post of Layout-man-cum-Retoucher. It is further submitted that the Iinpositors belong to Letter Press Wing but the Layoutmancum-Retoucher belongs Offset Wing and at no point of time an employee of Letter Press Wing can be promoted/transferred to Offset Wing, since the promotion is to be made trade wise, as per the prevailing 1988 Rule. Accordingly, it is only the Plate Maker, who are eligible for promotion for the post of Layout man-cum Retoucher. 16. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies on the decision of the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Jasmer Singh and others, and the subsequent decision in the case of State of Orissa -vrs- Balaram Sahu and Ors. reported in AIR 2003 se 33, wherein the Hon'ble Court held that where employee was employed on temporary adhoc or on daily wages or casual workers like NMRs cannot be treated on par for the purpose of pay scales with regularly employed permanent staff in the establishment so as to claim equal pay. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Court held that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' does not contemplate that only because the nature of the work is same irrespective of educational qualification or source of recruitment or other relevant considerations, the said doctrine would be automatically applicable. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Court held that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' does not contemplate that only because the nature of the work is same irrespective of educational qualification or source of recruitment or other relevant considerations, the said doctrine would be automatically applicable. The holders of a higher educational qualification can be treated as a separate class and can be treated different. 17. The Hon'ble Court further held that the right to equal pay would also depend upon not only the nature or volume of work, but also on the qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility as well and though the functions may be the same, but the responsibilities make a real and substantial difference. The question of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution on the part of the State would arise only if the persons are similarly placed. The equality clause contained therein will have no application where the persons are not similarly situated or when there is a valid classification based on a reasonable differentia. 18. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology and Another Vs. Manoj K. Mohanty, and the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Court in the case of Govt. of West Bengal-vrs- Tarun Kumar Ray and Ors. reported in (2004) 1 see 347, in support of his contention that mere similarity of work or job performed by the employee cannot alone be the determining factor for applying the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work', irrespective of their source of recruitment, their educational qualification, degree of skill and experience involved in performance of such job and other relevant considerations. Accordingly, it is submitted that the nature of work and responsibilities of Jr. Impositors and Layoutman-cumRetoucher being separate and distinct, the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' is not applicable to the facts of the present case and therefore the findings of the learned Tribunal, as given in the impugned award is erroneous and misconceived. 19. Learned Counsel for the Workers Union, opposite party No. 1, submits that the learned Tribunal on a detail consideration of the evidence on record having come to the finding that both the Jr. 19. Learned Counsel for the Workers Union, opposite party No. 1, submits that the learned Tribunal on a detail consideration of the evidence on record having come to the finding that both the Jr. Impositor and the Layoutman-cum-Retoucher discharge the same nature of work under one scheme with similar working conditions and that the technical skill required for both the jobs is same, such finding of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court in the present writ petition. Learned Counsel has relied on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Jaipal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, wherein it was held that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' would apply on the premise of similar work, but it does not mean that there should be complete identity in all respects. If the two classes of persons do same work under the same employer, with similar responsibility, under similar working condition, the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' would apply and it would not be open to the State to discriminate one class with the other in paying salary. The State is under a Constitutional obligation to ensure that equal pay is paid for equal work. The difference in the mode of selection will not affect the application of the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' if both classes of persons perform similar function and duties under the same employer. 20. Learned Counsel also refers to the decision of the apex Court in the I case of U.P. Rajya Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. -vrs- Workmen, reported in 1989 Supp. (2) 424, in support of his contention that the finding of fact recorded by - the learned Tribunal in the impugned award, not being perverse, cannot be faulted, so as to warrant any interference. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that as the workmen, Minaketan Padhi and Bauribandhu Pradhan are the only two Jr. Impositors, who are entitled to same salary as the Layoutman-cum-Retoucher, as per the impugned award, because of their educational as well as technical qualifications and they having already superannuated from service of the management since long, they are only entitled to differential pay from the date of reference, i.e., 15.02.2000 and therefore there is minimal financial implications for the Petitioner-management. 21. 21. On a perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that the learned Tribunal, on the basis of materials on record, found that the Jr. Impositors are discharging the same functions as that of Layoutman-cum-Retoucher and they both come under one scheme and that the technical skill required for both the jobs are same and though there are some differences as per the 1988 Rules, they are entitled to same salary. 22. Overemphasis on the doctrine of classification or an anxious or sustained attempt to discover some basis for classification may gradually and imperceptibly deprive the guarantee of equality of its spacious content and eventually end in substituting the doctrine of equality by the doctrine of classification. As has been observed by the Supreme Court in the case of T. Devadasan Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Another, that the aim and objective of Article 14 of the Constitution is to ensure that invidious distinction or arbitrary discrimination shall not be made by the State between a citizen and citizen who answer the same description and the differences which may exist between them are of no relevance for the purpose of applying a particular law. The idea of similarity or dissimilarity of situations of persons, to justify classification, cannot rest on merely differentia which may, by themselves be rational or logical, but depends on whether the differences are relevant to the goals sought to be achieved by the law which seeks to classify. The justification of the classification must needs, therefore, to be sought beyond the classification. All marks of distinction do not necessarily justify classification irrespective of the relevance or nexus to objects sought to be achieved by the law imposing the classification. As has been aptly put by Krishna Iyer, J. in The State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Shri Triloki Nath Khosa and Others, : Mini-classifications based on micro-distinctions are false to our egalitarian faith and only substantial and straight forward classifications plainly promoting relevant goals can have constitutional validity. To overdo classification is to undo equality. 23. As has been aptly put by Krishna Iyer, J. in The State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Shri Triloki Nath Khosa and Others, : Mini-classifications based on micro-distinctions are false to our egalitarian faith and only substantial and straight forward classifications plainly promoting relevant goals can have constitutional validity. To overdo classification is to undo equality. 23. Applying the aforementioned principles of law to the facts of the present case and considering the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal in the impugned award and the reasons assigned therein in support of the same, no impropriety or illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Tribunal so as to warrant any interference by this Court. The writ application is therefore devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Final Result : Dismissed