JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge dated 21.4.2004 confirming the award of the Labour Court dated 11.1.1994. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the Appellant had been appointed as a Junior Store Assistant and he claimed the scale of pay at par with the post of Junior Accounts Assistant. The Appropriate Government made a reference u/s 10 read with Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") as to whether the Appellant was entitled to the pay scale of Junior Accounts Assistant, i.e., the scale of pay of Rs. 715-1135/- per month. 3. The parties contested the case and after considering the materials on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there was a recommendation of the scale of pay vide letter dated 14.10.1988 of the Government of India, Ministry of Industry, Department of Chemicals and Fertilisers, in respect of certain posts. However, the post held by the Appellant was not included therein. It has also been held that the nature of work and duties assigned to the Appellant were entirely different than the post of Junior Accounts Assistant. The responsibilities are also different. Both the posts are filled up under different Rules and the mode of appointment is also different. Therefore, the Appellant was not entitled to aforesaid relief and award dated 11.1.1994 was made. 4. Being aggrieved, the Appellant-Petitioner challenged the said Award by filing the Writ Petition which has been dismissed vide impugned Judgment and Order Dated 21.4.2004 confirming the aforesaid findings of the Labour Court. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant agitated all the issues which had been agitated before the Labour Court as well as before the Learned Single Judge. 6. We have perused the letter of the Central Government dated 14.10.1988 and when the Learned Counsel for the Appellant was confronted with the contents thereof he could not satisfy the Court as to how the Appellant claimed relief under the said letter as it provided that the aforesaid pay scale was available only to three persons holding the post of Junior Accounts Assistant. It is not the case of the Appellant that he was one of the three employees, thus he could claim the relief on the basis of letter of the Central Government dated 14.10.1988. 7. So far as the second issue of parity of pay in view of the provisions of Article 39(d) of the Constitution is concerned, the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court which have been affirmed by the Learned Single Judge do not warrant said relief. 8. In Indian Council of Agricultural Research Vs. A.N. Lahiri, ; and State of Haryana and Another Vs. Ram Chander and Another the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while considering the issue of pay parity in view of the provisions of Article 39(d) of the Constitution, the difference in educational qualification may have a vital effect. 9. In State of Haryana Vs. Jasmer Singh and others the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of Articles 39(d), 14 and 16 of the Constitution and held that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not always easy to apply. There are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work done by different persons in different organisations, or even in the same organisation. There may be differences in educational 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. There may also be other considerations which have relevance to efficiency in service which may justify differences in pay scales on the basis of criteria such as experience and seniority, or a need to prevent stagnation in the cadre, so that the good performance can be elicited from persons who have reached the top of the pay scale. There may be various other similar considerations which may have a bearing on efficient performance in a job. The evaluation of such jobs for the purposes of pay scale must be left to expert bodies and, unless there are any mala fides, its evaluation should be accepted. The Court further observed as under: The Respondents, who are employed on daily wagers cannot be treated as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts. The Court further observed as under: The Respondents, who are employed on daily wagers cannot be treated as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts. Daily-rated workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers, nor do they have to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner in which the regular employees are selected. In other words, the requirements for selection are not as rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of a member of the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as prescribed, which daily-rated workmen are not subjected to. They can not, therefore, be equated with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can they claim the minimum of the regular pay scale of the regularly employed. 10. In Associate Bank of Officers' Association v. State Bank of India and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 32 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the claim of the Association for pay parity as their counterparts in the Bank on the ground that their pay scales had been fixed on a settlement reached by negotiation. The Court rejected the theory of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution observing that mere difference would not amount to discrimination. 11. In Union of India and others versus Nanda Kumar and others, (1997) 11 SCC 661 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering large number of its earlier Judgements including Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P and T Department Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ; Jacob M. Puthuparambil and others Vs. Kerala Water Authority and others held that the daily wagers or casual labourers employed on temporary basis by the railway administration would not be granted pay parity. 12. In State of U.P. and Ors. v. Ministerial Karamchari Sangh AIR 1998 SC 303 , the Apex Court observed that the issue of pay parity should be assigned to the Expert Body as it cannot be done by the Courts. However, if mode of appointment, qualification and promotion is different, there can be justification for fixing different pay scales. While dealing the case the Supreme Court considered its earlier Judgments including in Randhir Singh Vs. However, if mode of appointment, qualification and promotion is different, there can be justification for fixing different pay scales. While dealing the case the Supreme Court considered its earlier Judgments including in Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ; Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognised) and others Vs. Union of India and others, ; Jaipal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, ; and Dhirendra Chamoli and Another Vs. State of U.P., . 13. In Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a similar issue of pay parity to the daily-rated workers working since long considering large number of its earlier Judgments including Surinder Singh and Another Vs. Engineer-in-chief, C.P.W.D. and Others, ; Ghaziabad Development Authority and others Vs. Sri Vikram Chaudhary and others, ; Basudev Pati Vs. State of Orissa and Another, ; State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others etc. etc., ; Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, ; and held that for their absorption etc. the University may frame the Scheme for regularisation and as regularisation cannot be directed in absence of regular post and such employees can be entitled for minimum wages under the Statute, if any, or the prevailing wages in the locality but the question of claiming the minimum of the pay scale of a regular employee would not arise. 14. In State of Haryana and Another Vs. Tilak Raj and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: A scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of daily wager, he holds no post. The Respondent workers cannot be held to hold any post to claim even any comparison with the regular and permanent staff for any or all purposes including a claim for equal pay and allowances. To claim a relief on the basis of equality, it is for the claimants to substantiate a clear-cut basis of equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination before becoming eligible to claim rights on a par with other group vis-a-vis an alleged discrimination.... "Equal pay for equal work" is a concept which requires for its applicability complete and wholesome identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scales and the other group of employees who have already earned such pay scales. "Equal pay for equal work" is a concept which requires for its applicability complete and wholesome identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scales and the other group of employees who have already earned such pay scales. The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula. 15. While deciding the said case, reliance had been placed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on its earlier Judgments including State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia AIR 1989 SC 19 ; Harbans Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1989) 4 SCC 549. In Harbans Lal (supra), it has been held that a mere nomenclature designating a person is not enough to come to a conclusion that he was doing the same work. A comparison cannot be made with counterparts in other establishments with different locations though owned by the same management. The quality of work which is produced may be different, even the nature of work assigned may be different. It is not just a comparison of physical activity. The application of principle of pay parity requires consideration of various dimensions of given job. 16. In State of Haryana and Others Vs. Charanjit Singh and Others, etc. etc. a similar view has been reiterated rejecting the claim of 'equal pay for equal work' observing that 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 evaluated by a Competent Authority cannot be challenged. A classification based on different educational qualifications may also justify different pay scale. 17. In State of Karnataka and Others Vs. KGSD Canteen Employees Welfare Association and Others after considering very large number of its earlier Judgments and considering the provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that daily wagers cannot claim pay scale as that of government employees. The Court again reiterated the law laid down by it in its earlier Judgment in Mahendra L. Jain and Ors. v. Indore Development Authority and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 1252 , wherein it has been held that the daily wagers do not hold the post, therefore, they were not the employees of the State. The Court again reiterated the law laid down by it in its earlier Judgment in Mahendra L. Jain and Ors. v. Indore Development Authority and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 1252 , wherein it has been held that the daily wagers do not hold the post, therefore, they were not the employees of the State. Salary of a regular scale of pay, it is trite, is payable to an employee only when he holds a status. 18. In U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Sant Raj Singh and Ors.AIR 2000 SC 2296, the Supreme Court herd that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' as enshrined under Article 39(d) of the Constitution read with Article 14 thereof, cannot be applied in vacuum. The constitutional scheme postulates equal pay for equal work for those who are equally placed in all respects. Possession of a higher qualification has all along been treated to be a valid basis for classification of two categories of employees. 19. A similar view has been reiterated in Sohan Singh Sodhi Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, . 20. It is the duty of the employees seeking parity of pay under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India to prove and establish that he had been discriminated, as the question of parity has to be decided on consideration of various facts and statutory Rules etc. Vide Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Mahajabeen Akhtar, ; Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Dineshan K.K., ; and Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Hiranmoy Sen and Others, . 21. Doctrine of equal pay for equal work has assumed the status of the fundamental right in service jurisprudence Vide State of Kerala v. B. Ranjith Kumar AIR 2008 SCW 4279 . Therefore, incapacity of an institution to pay cannot be a ground of denial of equal pay for equal work. Vide Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation v. G.S. Uppal AIR 2008 SCW 3388 . 22. Thus, it is evident that claim of pay parity is to be decided taking into consideration various factual aspects, keeping in mind the scheme of Constitutional provisions and statutory Rules etc. The pay scale may depend upon large number of factors including seniority, experience, educational qualification, mode of selection and it cannot be claimed by the persons unless they establish complete equality with whom they claim parity. 23. The pay scale may depend upon large number of factors including seniority, experience, educational qualification, mode of selection and it cannot be claimed by the persons unless they establish complete equality with whom they claim parity. 23. The Court considered the submissions made by the other party that quality and quantity of work and the responsibility and accountability of both the posts are different, the nature of duties are different and the post was not interchangeable. The eligibility required for both the posts was different and the knowledge in accounts with some experience is essential to perform the work of Junior Accounts Assistant, which was not required for the other post and came to the conclusion that he was not entitled for parity of pay and there was no question of any kind of discrimination because unequals could not be treated as equals; both the posts belong to the different categories; recommendation made by the Government vide letter dated 14.10.1988 was not applicable in the case of the Appellant and therefore, he was not entitled for the relief sought. In view of the above, we do not see any justification to grant any relief on either count. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. B.N. Mahapatra, J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed