JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. This writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 3.1.2012. Now a restoration application has been filed along with delay condonation application. Reasons assigned in the delay condonation application seem to be bona fide. Delay condonation application (CLMA No. 1003 of 2012) is allowed. Delay in filing the restoration application is condoned. 2. Reasons assigned in the restoration application seem to be bona fide. Restoration application (MCC No. 69 of 2012) is allowed. Order dated 3.1.2012 is hereby recalled. The matter is restored to its original number. 3. Heard Mr. Rajeev Bisht, Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kishore Kumar, Counsel for respondent no. 2 on merit. 4. The petitioner is U.P. State Road Transport Corporation which is aggrieved by an award of labour court passed in favour of workman/respondent no.2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 was a workman in the office of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation at Dehradun and was working as a sweeper and though he was a part time workman work of eight hours was taken by him as was taken from regular employee of the said corporation. Therefore the exact reference which was made by the labour court was that whether respondent no.2 is entitled for equal pay for equal work for same and the award was given in his favour. Since the workman/respondent no.2 works for eight hours as done by a regular employee of the said corporation, he is entitled for the same wages and therefore the said award was passed. 5. This award has been challenged before this Court by the said corporation. The said award was passed after hearing both the parties, and on the considerations of the principle of equal pay for equal work which is applicable in the present case, the award was passed. There is no anomaly in the award passed by labour court. Consequently no interference with the order can be made. 6. The writ petition is dismissed. 7. No order as to costs.