Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 126 (GUJ)

MANJULABEN MANCHHUBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2018-01-15

BIREN VAISHNAV, M.R.SHAH

body2018
JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of Letters Patent Appeals and as such arise out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6568/2006 and other allied Special Civil Applications, all these Letters Patent Appeals are decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6568/2006 and other allied Special Civil Applications preferred by the original petitioners by which the learned Single Judge has directed the original respondents – State of Gujarat and Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board to absorb the original petitioners in the service on permanent basis and they should be treated as employees of the State so as to treat them at par with other State Government servants and by which it is held that the original writ applicants should be paid the salary commensurate with the Kendra Sanchalaks of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board for the city of Ahmedabad, the State of Gujarat has preferred Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 1125/2017, 1126/2017, 1130/2017, 1131/2017 and 1150/2017. The Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board under which the original writ applicants are working as Kendra Sanchalaks have also preferred Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 941/2017, 945/2017, 947/2017, 948/2017 and 949/2017. 2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge insofar as non-granting the regularization of their services and absorption on permanent basis at par with regular government employees with retrospective effect from the respective dates of entry into service, the original writ applicants have also preferred Cross Appeals being Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 1253/2017, 1262/2017, 1033/2017, 1034/2017 and 1365/2017. Thus, the present Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the original writ applicants can be said to be Cross Appeals to the appeals filed by the State of Gujarat as well as Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board. 3. The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeals in nutshell are as under: 3.1 That all the original writ applicants working as Kendra Sanchalaks and Jilla Sanchalaks respectively with the original respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board. That all of them were paid the honorarium. 3. The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeals in nutshell are as under: 3.1 That all the original writ applicants working as Kendra Sanchalaks and Jilla Sanchalaks respectively with the original respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board. That all of them were paid the honorarium. At this stage it is required to be noted that the respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as “Welare Board”) is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 by the Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad and under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The object of the respondent Welfare Board is to render social services for the upliftment and welfare of the agricultural labourers and rural workers. The Welfare Board is getting 100% grant-in-aid from the State Government for running its activities through the various projects. The central object behind the constitution of the respondent Welfare Board is to uplift the social, economic and educational status of the farm labourers and rural labourers in the State of Gujarat, who are an unorganized class. The Board organizes and coordinates various activities aimed at the upliftment of the farm labourers and rural labourers. Through the various programmes, the Welfare Board helps in the emancipation of the farm labourers and the rural labourers by creating awareness amongst them and by organizing them. The Welfare Board functions through the Kendra Sanchalaks and the Jilla Sanchalaks allotted to a particular District. Some of the original applicants were rendering their services as Kendra Sanchalaks and others as Jilla Sanchalks. All of them were appointed by calling their names from the Employment Exchange only. Right from the very beginning they were being paid the fixed sum of Rs.900/- per month (to the Kendra Sanchalaks) and Rs.1300/- per month (to the Jilla Sanchalaks) as honorarium. All of them were appointed by calling their names from the Employment Exchange only. Right from the very beginning they were being paid the fixed sum of Rs.900/- per month (to the Kendra Sanchalaks) and Rs.1300/- per month (to the Jilla Sanchalaks) as honorarium. That all the Kendra Sanchalaks and Jilla Sanchalaks approached this Court by way of present Special Civil Applications seeking the following relief’s “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, commanding the respondents herein to permanently absorb the petitioners in service on the posts currently occupied by them; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, commanding the respondents herein to treat the petitioners as State Government servants/employees and to ensure that the petitioners are treated at par in all respects with State Government servants/employees of equal rank by affording the petitioners pay scales, increments, dearness allowances, bonus, house rent allowance, medical allowance, leave travel concession, earned leave, sick leave, and retiral benefits like pension, provident fund, gratuity, etc. with effect from the respective dates of entry into service of the petitioners; (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass a cease and desist order to permanently restrain the respondents herein from terminating the services of the petitioners from the posts currently occupied by them; (D) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, commanding the respondents herein to apply the doctrine of equal pay for equal work to the petitioners by declaring them to be similar in all respects to the Kendra Sanchalaks of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board for the City of Ahmedabad and the Kendra Sanchalaks of the Gujarat Social Welfare Board, and be further pleased to direct the respondents to provide to the petitioners salary/wages and other service benefits equal in sum and measure to that of the Kendra Sanchalaks of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board for the City of Ahmedabad and the Kendra Sanchalaks of the Gujarat Social Welfare Board; (E) Your Lordships may be pleased to declare the action of the respondents herein of paying wages less than the minimum wage rate to the petitioners since inception as illegal, unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14, 16, 21, 23 and 39 of the Constitution of India. (F) Your Lordships may be pleased to declare the action of the respondents herein of paying the petitioners a paltry fixed sum of Rs.900/- per month (in case of Kendra Sanchalaks) and Rs.1,300/- per month (in case of Jilla Sanchalaks) as whimsical, capricious, arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, smacking o bonded labour, null and void;” 3.2 It was the case on behalf of the original petitioners that all of them are working as the Kendra Sanchalaks or the Jilla Sanchalks, as the case may be, for a period ranging from 3 months to 23 years. They are popularly known as the Gram Sevaks. That the appointment of the original petitioners was in accordance with the proper and regular selection procedure as per the constitutional scheme under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Their names were called from the Employment Exchange. Their educational qualifications and experience were scrutinized, and after oral interview, they were selected. That all of them have passed the S.S.C examination and some of them also hold a Bachelors degree. Though there were no recruitment rules in place, yet the procedure adopted for selection and appointment was not only compatible with the requirement of the job of the Kendra Sanchalak and Jilla Sanchalak, but also in consonance with the constitutional scheme under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. They were all recruited against the sanctioned posts as required for the proper and effective functioning of the Board. The Kendra Sanchalaks and Jilla Sanchalaks are the infrastructural support staff for the Board to discharge its duties and functions, and are part and parcel of the permanent establishment of the Board. It was also the case on behalf of the original writ applicants that the work performed by them is onerous. They work full time from morning to evening. They are not given any break in the service; they are required to work continuously from year to year. A muster roll is maintained for the petitioners. The central work of the petitioners is to help in the emancipation of the farm labourers and rural labourers in the State by engaging them in the various programmes and activities. That most of them have a long span of service. Majority of them have put in more than 10 years of service. The central work of the petitioners is to help in the emancipation of the farm labourers and rural labourers in the State by engaging them in the various programmes and activities. That most of them have a long span of service. Majority of them have put in more than 10 years of service. It was the case on behalf of the original writ applicants that despite the fact that they have been working as the Kendra Sanchalaks and the Jilla Sanchalaks for a long period, they were paid a fixed sum of Rs.900/per month and Rs. 1,300/- per month respectively. It was only in the year 2010 that by an oral interim order dated 27.10.2010 passed by this Court in the pending proceedings of Special Civil Application No.6568/2006 with Special Civil Application No. 9853/2006, their fixed pay was raised to Rs.4,500/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively by way of interim relief. 3.3 It was also the case on behalf of the original petitioners that in the year 1991, a special committee consisting of the Member Secretary of the respondent No.2 Board, the Welfare Commissioner of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board for the City of Ahmedabad, and the Deputy Secretary of the Labour and Employment Department, Government of Gujarat was constituted by the Board, vide Resolution dated 13.01.1991, for the purpose of improving the pay and service conditions of the writ applicants. The committee submitted its report to the Board which was forwarded to the State Government for approval. According to the original writ applicants, the Committed observed and recommended that (i) Kendra Sanchalaks are entitled to be placed in the pay scale of Rs.13502200; (ii) they were entitled to be paid one increment on completion of 5 years and two increments on completion of 10 years while fixing their pay. It was also recommended that such Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks are entitled to be treated at par with the Kendra Sanchalaks of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board for the city of Ahmedabad as the nature of their work is similar to that done by the Kendra Sanchalaks of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board for the city of Ahmedabad. It was also observed that there is more or less complete similarity between the Kendra Sanchalaks of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board for the city of Ahmedabad and the Kendra Sanchalaks of the Welfare Board. It was also observed that there is more or less complete similarity between the Kendra Sanchalaks of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board for the city of Ahmedabad and the Kendra Sanchalaks of the Welfare Board. According to the petitioners, the Committee further observed that, in fact, the duties of the petitioners were more taxing and arduous than the duties of their counterparts in the above referred Board. Therefore, it was the case on behalf of the writ applicants that despite the fact that as far back as in the year 1991 an expert committee came to the conclusion that the original writ applicants – petitioners were entitled to be treated at par with their counterparts employed in the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board for the city of Ahmedabad and the committee had also come to the conclusion that the nature of the work performed by the writ applicants was more taxing and arduous than that performed by their counterparts employed with the two other Boards, and that the original writ applicants were entitled to be given the pay scale as given to their counterparts employed with the other two Boards, nothing further was done and the original writ applicants working as Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks were being paid the honorarium at Rs.900 per month and Rs.1300 per month respectively and therefore, all the applicants preferred the above Special Civil Applications before the learned Single Judge for the aforesaid relief’s. 3.4 All the aforesaid Special Civil Applications were opposed by the State Government as well as the respondent No.2 Welfare Board. 3.5 It was submitted on behalf of the original respondents – State Government as well as respondent No.2 Welfare Board that the Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks working with the respondent No.2 Board cannot be compared with those Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks working with Gujarat Labour Welfare Board for the city of Ahmedabad. 3.6 It was submitted that there is a vast difference between the constitution and functioning of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad and the Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, Gandhinagar. It was submitted that the registration of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad is under the provisions of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953 and hence, the Rules under the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund (Gujarat), 1962 shall be applicable to the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad. It was submitted that the registration of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad is under the provisions of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953 and hence, the Rules under the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund (Gujarat), 1962 shall be applicable to the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad. It was also submitted that the posts under the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad are statutory posts. It was also submitted that the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad is not a 100% grant-in-aid institution. That the funds are collected by the “Establishments” (Registered Factories) in form of Labour Cess (Labour Welfare Fund) each year under the Bombay Labour Act which generates income for the Board. It was submitted that the Sanchalaks in the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad are appointed on regular establishment as approved by the State Government. That they are permanent employees of the State as they are appointed as per the policy and Rules framed by the Labour and Employment Department of the State and therefore, the wages and salary as fixed by the State was paid to those Sanchalaks working with the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad. It was further submitted even the activities undertaken by the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad are different than the activities undertaken by the Sanchalaks working with the Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, Gandhinagar. It was also submitted that the Sanchalaks of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad have full time work and are indulged in various training and educational programmes. It was also submitted that 80 posts are approved in the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad of which 59 posts are occupied. 3.7 It was also submitted that method of recruitment of Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks working with the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad is altogether different than that of Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks working with the Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, Gandhinagar. It was submitted that Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks working with the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad are recruited through the statutory recruitment Rules. 3.8 It was also submitted on behalf of the State that all the Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks working with respondent No.2 Board were appointed on a post which is honorary and the wages which are paid are also honorarium in nature. It was submitted that they are paid the honorarium for their service, as they are rendering social service. 3.8 It was also submitted on behalf of the State that all the Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks working with respondent No.2 Board were appointed on a post which is honorary and the wages which are paid are also honorarium in nature. It was submitted that they are paid the honorarium for their service, as they are rendering social service. 3.9 It was also submitted that even the services rendered by the writ applicants as Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks working with the respondent No.2 is a part time job. It was submitted that the writ applicants are not working full time. That they are working from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and hence, they are part timers. It was also the case on behalf of the respondent State and respondent No.2 that the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 shall not be applicable in the case of the writ applicants. It was submitted that the nature of the work and the duties performed by the writ applicants are not included in the schedule appended to the Minimum Wages Act. It was submitted that such has been the scheme right from the enactment of the Act and is still continued till today. It was also the case on behalf of the respondent State and the original respondent No.2 Board that the activities of the respondent No.2 Board were only for a limited period and not of a permanent nature. It was submitted that many of the welfare activities done by the respondent No.2 Board have been subsequently transferred to the respective departments. Therefore, it was submitted that the recommendations of the Committee given in 1991 have lost their relevance today. 3.10 Therefore, it was the case on behalf of the respondent that as considering the recruitment process; the activities of the Kendra Sanchalaks working with the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad; constitution of Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad is altogether different than that of the Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, Gandhinagar and therefore, the Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks working with the Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, Gandhinagar cannot claim the parity with the Kendra Sanchalaks of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad and in any case their services cannot be regularized and they cannot be absorbed as a State Government employee. 3.11 That after considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the original writ applicants and the Counsel appearing on behalf of the original respondent State and the original respondent No.2 and relying upon the report of the Expert Committee of 1991 and applying the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work and by observing that though stricto senso the Minimum Wages Act may not be applicable, the writ applicants are required to be paid the reasonable wages and by observing that having regard to the mode of appointment, statutory rules governing the working conditions, the nature of the functions the writ applicants are expected to discharge, it cannot be said that they are rendering the honorary services to the State Government and thereafter by observing as above, by impugned common judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the aforesaid Special Civil Applications and has observed and held that all the writ applicants deserve to be absorbed in the services on permanent basis and they should be treated as the employees of the State so as to treat them at par with the other State Government servants. The learned Single Judge by impugned judgment and order has also observed and held that the doctrine of Equal Pay For Equal Work would apply considering the employees – Kendra Sanchalaks of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board for the city of Ahmedabad and the Kendra Sanchalaks of the original respondent No.2 Welfare Board. The learned Single Judge has also further directed that the writ applicants should be paid the salary commensurate with the Kendra Sanchalaks of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board for the city of Ahmedabad. 3.12 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order, original respondent – State and original respondent No.2 Welfare Board have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeals. As observed hereinabove, even the original writ applicants have also preferred the Cross Appeals in not granting the relief’s of regularization/objection from the date of their initial appointment. 4. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of the State of Gujarat. Shri Gunvant Thakar, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the original respondent No.2 – Welfare Board and Shri Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the original writ applicants. 5. Ms. 4. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of the State of Gujarat. Shri Gunvant Thakar, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the original respondent No.2 – Welfare Board and Shri Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the original writ applicants. 5. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent – State of Gujarat has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in directing to absorb the original writ applicants in the service on permanent basis and further observing and holding that they should be treated as the employees of the State so as to treat them at par with other State Government servants. It is further submitted by Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader that even the learned Single Judge has materially erred in directing to pay the original writ applicants the wages/allowances at par with the Kendra Sanchalaks of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board for the city of Ahmedabad. 5.1 It is further submitted by Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader that by granting the aforesaid relief’s the learned Single Judge has not at all properly appreciated the difference between the Gujarat State Rural Welfare Board, Ahmedabad and the Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, Gandhinagar. It is submitted that while granting the aforesaid relief’s, the learned Single has not properly appreciated the differences between Kendra Sanchalaks of the aforesaid two Boards. 5.2 It is further submitted by Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader that as such the constitution of the Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, Gandhinagar for the city of Ahmedabad is altogether different than that of the original respondent No. 2 Board and that the set up, establishment and the work being carried out by the Gujarat State Labour Welfare Board for the city of Ahmedabad is altogether different, source of employment by the Gujarat State Labour Welfare Board for the city of Ahmedabad for the post of Kendra Sanchalaks is altogether different than that of the Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks of Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, Gandhinagar. The learned Government Pleader has heavily relied upon the following chart/comparative chart to demonstrate the difference in the setup, establishment and work being carried out by both the Boards. Sr. No. Rural Board Government Employees 1. The learned Government Pleader has heavily relied upon the following chart/comparative chart to demonstrate the difference in the setup, establishment and work being carried out by both the Boards. Sr. No. Rural Board Government Employees 1. The Gujarat Rural & Labour Welfare Board is registered under the Societies Act, 1860 as well as under the Public Trust by the Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad and the Public Trusts Act. The Gujarat State Labour Welfare Board is constituted under the provisions of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953 and governed by regulations framed under the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund (Gujarat), 1962. 2. It is 100% Grant-in-Aid and receives funds from the State and has no other source of income. It is not a 100% Grant-in-Aid institution, funds are collected by the “Establishments” (Registered Factories) in the form of Labour cess (Labour Welfare Fund) each year under the Bombay Labour Act which generates income for the Board. 3. The Gram Sevaks are appointed by calling for names from the employment exchange. Sanchalaks are recruited by following recruitment rules after issuance of advertisement in newspapers. 4. The services of the Sanchalaks are taken purely on an Honorary Basis. Appointment orders State. The Sanchalaks are appointed on sanctioned posts as approved by the State Government and are paid Regular salaries. 5. The Sanchalaks are as being appointed on Honorary basis therefore are not State Government Employees and are not eligible to receive the benefits of permanent employee. The Sanchalaks are permanent employees of the State as they are appointed as per the policy and rules fixed by the Labour and Employment Department of the State and are therefore the wages/salary as fixed by the State would be applicable. 6. Vide resolution dated 28.09.2006 of the Women and Children Development, almost all functions either to, carried out by the Rural Board are transferred to the Women & Child Development Department under the integrated Child Development Scheme funded by the Government of India. Hence, since 2006 there is almost no work for the Sanchalaks and no new recruitment of Rural Sanchalaks has been undertaken since 2006. The Board undertakes the activities of library, Indoor and Outdoor Games, Training for alternative occupations and vocational guidance, Classes for Tailoring Course, Nursery Schools, etc. and the other actions stipulated under the Act. 7. Hence, since 2006 there is almost no work for the Sanchalaks and no new recruitment of Rural Sanchalaks has been undertaken since 2006. The Board undertakes the activities of library, Indoor and Outdoor Games, Training for alternative occupations and vocational guidance, Classes for Tailoring Course, Nursery Schools, etc. and the other actions stipulated under the Act. 7. The Sanchalaks of the Board do not have full time work and includes only filling up the forms of the four schemes i.e. Labour Accidental Insurance Policy, Medical Emergency Scheme, Anesthesia Scheme, Giving Identity Card and Cycles to Self Pan Workers, under the Scheme which is operative only in 13 districts. The Sanchalaks of the Board have full time work and are carrying on various training and education programs. 8. A total of 17 posts were approved for Grade-II to Grade-IV employees. At present only 1 Grade IV employee is in employment and other 2 are taken on deputation. 80 posts are approved of which 59 posts are occupied. 5.3 It is further submitted by Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader that the learned Single Judge has materially erred in relying upon the report of the Expert Committee which was submitted in the year 1991 and which was given considering the position in the year 1991. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the subsequent change and the reduction of work and the activities after 1991. It is further submitted by Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader that various schemes have been subsequently diverted to other Departments of the State such as Health Department, Industries Department and other concerned Departments. It is submitted that prior to 2006 the Gram Sevaks/Kendra Sanchalaks were engaged to propagate the various schemes viz. (1) Group Insurance Scheme for landless labourer; (2) Group Insurance Scheme for forest workers; (3) Group Insurance Scheme for salt workers; (4) Group Insurance Scheme for fishermen; (5) Maternity Benefit Aid to Agricultural labour; (6) Scheme of pucca quarters to salt pan workers etc. It is submitted that all the above schemes/activities have been discontinued since 2006 and diverted to other departments. It is submitted that all the above schemes/activities have been discontinued since 2006 and diverted to other departments. It is submitted that the only work carried out by the original respondent No.2 Welfare Board thereafter is to run the welfare centres for children of agricultural and rural workers and “Shramik Suraksha Yojana” and work of medical aid to BPL Workers of rural areas in serious disease. It is submitted that despite the fact that the aforesaid was specifically pointed out in the affidavit in reply, the learned Single Judge has still relied upon the report of the Expert Committee of 1991. 5.4 It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated and considered the fact that the activities which were considered at the relevant time by the Expert Committee in its report of 1991, most of them are discontinued and/or diverted to the concerned Government Departments and they are not being performed by the Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks of the respondent No.2 Welfare Board. It is submitted that therefore the learned Single Judge has materially erred in relying upon the report of the Expert Committee of the year 1991 which was considering the position as on 1991 and/or the activities being carried out by the respondent No.2 in the year 1991. 5.5 It is further submitted by Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader that the learned Single Judge has materially erred in observing that the appointments of the concerned original writ applicants were as per the statutory rules and after following due procedure as required and were in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that merely because the appointments were made after calling the names from the Employment Exchange, it cannot be said that their appointments were made in consonance with the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In support of her submission she has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Mamata Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 . 5.6 It is further submitted by Ms. In support of her submission she has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Mamata Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 . 5.6 It is further submitted by Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader that as such all the original writ applicants were appointed as Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks to carry out the social services and were being paid the honorarium and their appointments were not in consonance with the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and in absence of any permanent set up and/or regular establishment, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in directing the original respondent State and the respondent No.2 Welfare Board to absorb them on permanent basis and to treat them as employees of the State Government and to pay salary/wages at par with the employees of the State Government and/or the employees of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board for the city of Ahmedabad. 5.7 It is further submitted by Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader that as such the State Government rightly agreed and as such implemented the interim order passed by this Court and enhanced the honorarium of Rs.4500 and Rs.5000 to Kendra Sanchalaks and Jilla Sanchalaks respectively, starting from the month of October, 2010 payable in November 2010. 5.8 It is further submitted by Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader that as such during the pendency of the Special Civil Applications and pursuant to the order dated 27.10.2010, the issue was considered at large by the Additional Chief Secretary, State of Gujarat and after hearing and considering the representation of the original writ applicants, the Additional Chief Secretary vide order dated 27.12.2010 has not accepted the claim of the original applicants by giving cogent reasons. 5.9 It is further submitted that over and above the honorarium of Rs.4500 to Kendra Sanchalaks and Rs.5000 to Jilla Sanchalaks, the concerned respective Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks are paid daily allowance which has been increased from time to time and they are paid the daily allowance of Rs.40 per day on the specific terms and conditions and for 10 days as the respective Sanchalaks have to travel only for 10 days at the most in a month. It is further submitted that even the respective Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks have to work from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. only. It is further submitted that even the respective Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks have to work from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. only. 5.10 It is further submitted that even in the case of Aanganwadi workers in Balwadis who at the earlier point of time were appointed under the Rural Board and who in terms of Government Resolution dated 29.08.2006 came to be transferred under the ICDS Scheme are not considered as regular government employees and are receiving Rs.6300 per month. It is submitted that such Aanganwadi workers are also not considered at par with the regular employees of the State Government and accordingly the writ applicants too are not required to be considered for granting the benefits at par with the regular employees. 5.11 It is further submitted by Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader that while issuing the directions while passing the impugned common judgment and order the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the difference between the Equal Pay For Equal Work and putting them at par with government employees and/or to make them regular/absorbed them on permanent basis and that too at par with the government employees. It is submitted that therefore the learned Single Judge has materially erred in issuing the directions issued while allowing the petitions which are the subject matter of the present Letters Patent Appeals. 6. Shri Gunvant Thakar, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 – Welfare Board adopted the submissions made by Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State of Gujarat. 7. All these Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the State of Gujarat and the original respondent No.2 – Welfare Board are vehemently opposed by Shri Shalin Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original petitioners. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State of Gujarat. 7. All these Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the State of Gujarat and the original respondent No.2 – Welfare Board are vehemently opposed by Shri Shalin Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original petitioners. Shri Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original petitioners has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and after having found that the duties performed by the Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks of Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad and Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, Gandhinagar are similar and even the Expert Committee which was constituted by the State Government also opined in its report that the Kendra Sanchalaks working with the original respondent No.2 are entitled to be treated at par with the Kendra Sanchalaks of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad and the nature of their work is similar to that of Kendra Sanchalaks of the Welfare Board and the Committee also observed/recommended in their report that the Kendra Sanchalaks of Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, Gandhinagar – original respondent No.2 are entitled to be placed in the pay scale of Rs.13502200 and they shall be paid the wages/salary at par with those Kendra Sanchalaks of Gujarat Labour Welfare Board for the city of Ahmedabad and considering the fact that the respective original petitioners were working since more than 15 to 20 years and were paid only a meagre amount by way of honorarium, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in directing the original respondents to absorb the original petitioners on permanent basis and that they should be treated as employees of the State so as to treat them at par with the other State Government servants. 7.1 It is further submitted that even on the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work also the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks working with the Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, Gandhinagar – original respondent No.2 are also entitled to be paid the wages/salary at par with the employees of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board for the city of Ahmedabad. 7.2 It is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original petitioners that as such the original respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, Gandhinagar is constituted by the State Government, Labour and Welfare Department. It is submitted that even the original respondent No.2 is getting 100% grant-in-aid from the State Government for running its activities through various projects. It is submitted that the original respondent No.2 Board is fully controlled by the State Government as the Hon’ble Minister of Labour is the Chairman of the Board and the Labour Commissioner (State) (Rural) occupies the post of Secretary of the Board. 7.3 It is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned Counsel that the central object behind the constitution of the respondent Welfare Board is to uplift the social, economic and educational status of the farm labourers and rural labourers in the State of Gujarat, who are an unorganized class. The Board organizes and coordinates various activities aimed at the upliftment of the farm labourers and rural labourers. Through the various programmes, the Welfare Board helps in the emancipation of the farm labourers and the rural labourers by creating awareness amongst them and by organizing them. It is further submitted that before the constitution of the Board, such work of upliftment of the social, economic and educational status of the farm labourers and rural labourers was performed by the Mamlatdar of the concerned area. It is submitted that since 1981, this work has been taken over by the respondent No.2 Board. 7.4 It is submitted by Shri Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original petitioners that all the respective original petitioners were appointed in accordance with the proper and regular selection procedure as per the Constitutional Scheme under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the names were called from the Employment Exchange; their educational qualifications and experience were scrutinized, and after oral interview, they were selected. It is submitted that though there were no recruitment rules in place, the procedure adopted for selection and appointment was not only compatible with the requirement of job of Kendra Sanchalaks and Jilla Sanchalaks, but also in consonance with the constitutional schemes under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that though there were no recruitment rules in place, the procedure adopted for selection and appointment was not only compatible with the requirement of job of Kendra Sanchalaks and Jilla Sanchalaks, but also in consonance with the constitutional schemes under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that all of them were recruited against the sanctioned posts as required for proper and effective functioning of the Board. It is submitted that infact, the Kendra Sanchalaks and Jilla Sanchalaks are the infrastructural support staff for the Board to discharge its duties and functions. It is submitted that therefore the appointment of the original petitioners cannot be construed as on contract basis or on adhoc basis or on daily wage basis. It is submitted that the appointment was on regular permanent basis like any other permanent employees of the State Government. 7.5 It is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original petitioners that despite the above and having taken full time work and all of them worked full time from morning to evening and without any break in service and they worked continuously from year to year, all of them were paid a meagre amount of Rs.900 per month/Rs.1300 per month which has been increased to Rs.4500 per month pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court. It is submitted that therefore it was a clear cut exploitation of the original petitioners, on the part of the original respondents. 7.6 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the State/Board that the work carried out by the original petitioners was of perennial nature and that its activities were only for a limited period or not of a permanent nature, it is vehemently submitted by Shri Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original petitioners that the respondent No.2 Welfare Board has been in existence since the year 1981. It is submitted that in an organization of this nature which has been in existence for more than 35 years, it is quite natural that some of its activities comes to an end and new activities are generated. It is submitted that merely because some old activities have come to an end, it cannot be said that the Board is not of a permanent nature or its functions are not of perennial nature. It is submitted that merely because some old activities have come to an end, it cannot be said that the Board is not of a permanent nature or its functions are not of perennial nature. It is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original petitioners that even some of the activities of the Board viz. (1) to run Welfare Centres for children of agricultural and rural workers; (2) “Shramik Suraksha Yojana” and work of medical aid to BPL Workers in rural areas in serious diseases are of permanent nature and to carry out these activities it needs the services of Sanchalaks on regular permanent basis. 7.7 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the State/original respondent No.2 – Welfare Board that the Minimum Wages Act shall not be applicable to the respondent Board is concerned, it is vehemently submitted by Shri Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original petitioners that though technically and/or stricto senso Minimum Wages Act may not be applicable to the respondent No.2 Board, still right to fair wage, which is more than a minimum wage flows from Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that therefore, even if it is assumed, for the sake of argument that the Notification dated 16.12.2014 issued by the Labour and Employment Department of the State of Gujarat does not refer to the nature of work and duties performed by Kendra Sanchalaks and Jilla Sanchalaks, all of them have found right to demand a fair wage for the services rendered by them. It is submitted that only pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court dated 27.10.2010, their fix pay has been raised to Rs.4500 and Rs.5000 respectively. 7.8 Now, so far as the challenge to the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of absorption of the original petitioners – Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks on permanent basis and/or regularization of their services is concerned, it is submitted that infact the State Government issued a Circular dated 01.05.2007 for one time regularization of all Government employees which is in consonance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Devi reported in (2008) 4 SCC 1 . It is submitted that the original petitioners – Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks working with the respondent No.2 Board are as such fulfilling all the conditions required pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) for one time regularization and absorption in permanent service. It is submitted that therefore no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in directing to absorb the original petitioners on permanent basis and to treat them at par with the government employees. In support of his above submissions, Shri Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original petitioners has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari & Ors. reported in 2010 (7) Scale 743 . Making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is requested to dismiss the present Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the State of Gujarat and the original respondent No. 2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, Gandhinagar. 7.9 Shri Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original petitioners has submitted in support of the appeals preferred by the original petitioners and submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have granted the relief’s from the date of their initial appointments and ought to have directed the State to pay the salary/wages to them at par with the employees of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad, from the date of their initial appointment with the original respondent No.2. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the original petitioners. 8. Heard learned Counsel appearing for respective parties at length. At the outset it is required to be noted that all the original petitioners are working as Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks with the original respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, Gandhinagar. The original respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board as such is registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1860 and registered as Public Trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act. It is required to be noted that services of the Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks are taken purely on honorary basis. The original respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, is 100% grant-in-aid and receives funds from the State Government and has no other source of income. It is required to be noted that services of the Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks are taken purely on honorary basis. The original respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, is 100% grant-in-aid and receives funds from the State Government and has no other source of income. It is also required to be noted that there are no statutory Rules governing the appointment of Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks so far as the original respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board is concerned. Solely after calling the names from the Employment Exchange all of them are appointed as Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks and they are being paid the honorarium. That by impugned common judgment and order the learned Single Judge has observed and held that the original writ applicants deserve to be absorbed in the service on permanent basis and they should be treated as employees of the State so as to treat them at par with other State Government servants. The learned Single Judge has also observed and held that the doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work would apply considering the employees of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad and Kendra Sanchalaks of the original respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, Gandhinagar at par. That the learned Single Judge has also further observed and held and directed that the original writ applicants should be paid the salary commensurate with the Kendra Sanchalaks of Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad. Thus, the learned Single Judge has directed the State Government as well as the original respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board to pay the salary/wages to the original petitioners/Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks of the original respondent No.2 Board at par with the Kendra Sanchalaks of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad. Therefore, the short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether the learned Single Judge is right in directing the State and the original respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board to absorb the original writ applicants – Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks working with the original respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board on permanent basis and to treat them as the employees of the State so as to treat them at par with the other State Government servants? Another question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether the learned Single Judge has committed any error in directing the State and the original respondent No. 2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board to pay the salary to the Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks of the original respondent No. 2 at par with the Kendra Sanchalaks of Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad? 8.1 Now, so far as the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to absorb all the original writ applicants in the service on permanent basis and to treat them as the employees of the State so as to treat them at par with other State Government servants is concerned, on going through and/or considering the entire judgment it appears to us that after recording the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for respective parties, thereafter no further reasons have been assigned as to why the original petitioners are required to be absorbed in the service on permanent basis and why they should be treated as the employees of the State so as to treat them at par with other State Government servants. If we consider the judgment as a whole the entire decision/judgment seems to be on the reasoning of Equal Pay for Equal Work and/or fair wages and the reliance placed upon the report of 1991 of the Expert Committee. Though at one place the learned Single Judge observed that the appointments of the original writ applicants was as per the statutory rules, it is required to be noted that the learned Single Judge observed and considered the Gujarat Gram Kamdar Kalyan Board Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1981. However there seems to be some misconception. The appointments of the writ applicants as Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks are not as per the aforesaid Rules and/or any other statutory Rules. Infact, there were no statutory rules regulating the appointment of the Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks working with the original respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board. Therefore, it may not be accurate to say that they were appointed after following the statutory rules governing the working conditions. At this stage it is required to be noted that even according to the original petitioners – writ applicants, they were appointed after their names were called from the Employment Exchange and after oral interview. Therefore, it may not be accurate to say that they were appointed after following the statutory rules governing the working conditions. At this stage it is required to be noted that even according to the original petitioners – writ applicants, they were appointed after their names were called from the Employment Exchange and after oral interview. Even it was not the case on behalf of the original writ applicants that their appointments were governed by any statutory rules more particularly Gujarat Gram Kamdar Kalyan Board Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1981. Merely because the appointments were by calling the names from the Employment Exchange only, it cannot be said that they were appointed in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Even it cannot be said that they were appointed after following any statutory rules. At this stage it is required to be noted that all the original writ applicants were appointed as Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks and their activity was to boost the government benevolent schemes and that they were to work from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. (9 a.m. to 1 p.m.). There are serious disputed questions of facts whether they are rendering the service full time or not. The fact remains that they are paid the honorarium. Under the circumstances, by no stretch of imagination they can be treated as government employees/servants and/or at par with the government servants. Original writ applicants therefore cannot be compared with the Government employees who as such are appointed after following due procedure of selection and statutory Rules and on permanent set up/establishment. 8.2 At this stage it is required to be noted that even the learned Single Judge has materially erred in considering and/or relying upon the report of the Expert Committee of 1991, who while making recommendations considered the position and/or the activities carried out by the Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks as on in the year 1991. However, there is a lot of change in the activities carried out by Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks in the year 1991 and/or thereafter. Many of the schemes which earlier were with the original respondent No. 2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board for which the Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks were doing their activities had been transferred to the concerned Departments of the Government. Many of the schemes which earlier were with the original respondent No. 2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board for which the Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks were doing their activities had been transferred to the concerned Departments of the Government. Even vide resolution dated 28.09.2006 of the Women and Children Development Department, the Rural Balwadis have been handed over to the Women and Children Development Department (ICDS). According to the Board and the State, even the Sanchalaks of the respondent No.2 Board do not have a full time work. It is also required to be noted at this stage that even there are no permanent sanctioned posts of Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks of the original respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board. All the Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks who are 359 in numbers were employed on honorary basis. Under the circumstances, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in directing the State and the original respondent No. 2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board to absorb the original writ applicants in service on permanent basis and that they should be treated as employees of the State so as to treat them at par with other State Government servants. There is no justification shown at all to absorb all of them in the service on permanent basis and more particularly to treat all of them as the employees of the State so as to treat them at par with other State Government servants. 9. Now, so far as the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to pay the salary/wages to the Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks of the original respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board at par with the employees of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad is not comparable at all with that of the original respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, Gandhinagar. The registration of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad is under the provisions of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953 and therefore, the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund (Gujarat) Act, 1962 shall be applicable. The posts of Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks in Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad are governed by the statutory rules. All the posts are statutory posts which are sanctioned. The posts of Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks in Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad are governed by the statutory rules. All the posts are statutory posts which are sanctioned. Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad is not a grant-in-aid institution and is not dependent upon the grant given by the State Government. They are having their own funds and they generate the income and the funds are collected by the “Establishments” viz. Registered Factories in the form of labour cess (Labour Welfare Fund) each year and the Bombay Labour Act which generates the income for the Board. The Sanchalaks of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad are appointed on regular establishment as approved by the State Government. All of them are permanent employees of the State as they are appointed as per the policy and rules of the Labour and Employment Department of the State of Gujarat and therefore, the wages/salary fixed by the State would be applicable to them. Even the activities undertaken by the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad and its Sanchalaks are many more than the activities carried out by the original respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, Gandhinagar. The Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad also undertakes the activities of Library, Indoor and Outdoor games, Training for alternative occupations and vocational guidance, classes for tailoring course, nursery schools etc. The Sanchalaks of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad have full time work and are also indulged in various training and educational programmes. It is required to be noted that there are 6 posts of Sanchalaks sanctioned and approved so far as the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad is concerned out of which only 2 have been filled and rest are vacant. Against which so far as the original respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board is concerned, there are no sanctioned/approved strength of posts of Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks and at present out of 359 posts, 250 posts have been filled by Sanchalaks on honorary basis in the head office and in District out of 17 posts of Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks, 13 posts have been filled in. So far as the Sanchalaks working in the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad are concerned, they work on full time basis. Original writ applicants work only between 9.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. i.e. four hours. So far as the Sanchalaks working in the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad are concerned, they work on full time basis. Original writ applicants work only between 9.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. i.e. four hours. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in treating and/or considering and/or directing to consider the Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks of the original respondent No.2 – Welfare Board at par with the Sanchalaks of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad. Under the circumstances, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in directing to pay the salary to the original writ applicants commensurate with the Kendra Sanchalaks of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad and/or at par with the Kendra Sanchalaks of Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad. 9.1 Even on the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work also looking to the fact that the activities carried out by the Sanchalaks of the original respondent No.2 – Welfare Board and that of Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad are altogether different; their timings are different; their mode of appointment and recruitment is different; they are governed by the statutory Rules and their appointments are made on the sanctioned posts approved by the State Government, we are of the opinion that the cases of writ applicants – Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks of original respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, Gandhinagar cannot be compared with those Sanchalaks working with the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad. At the cost of repetition it is observed that much water has flown after 1991 and many of the welfare/benevolent schemes and the activities which were carried out by the Sanchalaks for the aforesaid schemes have been transferred to other Departments and now they are not with the original respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, Gandhinagar and at present the Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks of the original respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, Gandhinagar are required to undertake very little activities which are not comparable with the activities undertaken by the Sanchalaks of Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad. 9.2 As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions the principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work”, applies to (i) cases of unequal scales of pay, based on no classification or irrational classification. 9.2 As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions the principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work”, applies to (i) cases of unequal scales of pay, based on no classification or irrational classification. For equal pay, the employees concerned with whom equation is sought, should be performing work, which besides being functionally euqal, should be of the same quality and sensitivity; (ii) persons holding the same rank/designation (in different departments), but having dissimilar powers, duties and responsibilities, can be placed in different scales of pay and cannot claim the benefit of the principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work”. Therefore, the principle would not be automatically invoked merely because the subject and reference posts have the same nomenclature; (iii) in determining equality of functions and responsibilities under the principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work”, it is necessary to keep in mind that the duties of the two posts should be of equal sensitivity, and also, qualitatively similar. Differentiation of pay scales for posts with difference in degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality, would fall within the realm of valid classification, and therefore, pay differentiation would be legitimate and permissible. The nature of work of the subject post should be the same and not less onerous than the reference post. Even the volume of work should be the same. And so also, the level of responsibility. If these parameters are not met, parity cannot be claimed under the principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work”; (iv) For placement in a regular pay scale, the claimant has to be a regular appointee selected on the basis of a regular process of recruitment. An employee appointed on a temporary basis cannot claim to be placed in the regular pay scale; (v) If the qualifications for recruitment to the subject post vis-a-vis the reference post are different, it may be different, it may be difficult to conclude that the duties and responsibilities of the posts are qualitatively similar or comparable. In such a case the principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work” cannot be invoked; (vi) A comparison between the subject post and the reference post under the principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work” cannot be made where the subject post and the reference post are in different establishments, having a different management or even, where the establishments are in different geographical locations, though owned by the same master. Persons engaged differently, and being paid out of different funds, would not be entitled to pay parity and (vii) The parity in pay, under the principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work”, cannot be claimed merely on the ground that at an earlier point of time the subject post and the reference post, were placed in the same pay scale. The principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work” is applicable only when it is shown, that the incumbents of the subject post and the reference post, discharge similar duties and responsibilities. Under the circumstances, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in directing the State Government and the original respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, Gandhinagar to pay salary to the original writ applicants – Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks of the original respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, Gandhinagar at par with and/or commensurate with the Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad. 10. However, at the same time the original writ applicants are justified in making the grievance that they were being paid the meager amount by way of honorarium. From the material on record it appears that in the year 1981, all the Kendra Sanchalaks were being paid the honorarium at the rate of Rs.300 per month, the same came to be increased in the year 1988 to Rs.500 per month which subsequently came to be increased to Rs.900 to the Kendra Sanchalaks and Rs.1300 to the Jilla Sanchalaks. That pursuant to the interim order dated 27.10.2010 passed by this Court, on and from October 2010, all of them are being paid the honorarium at Rs.4500/- to the Kendra Sanchalaks and Rs.5000/- to the Jilla Sanchalaks. It is also required to be noted that all of them are being paid the daily battha maximum for a period of 10 days in a month and as and when they are required to go to the field work. So all of them are being paid at present Rs.4500/- per month so far as the Kendra Sanchalaks are concerned and Rs.5000/- per month so far as Jilla Sanchalaks are concerned on and from October 2010. It is true that Minimum Wages Act shall not be applicable to such Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks as their activities do not fall in the Schedule of the Minimum Wages Act. It is true that Minimum Wages Act shall not be applicable to such Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks as their activities do not fall in the Schedule of the Minimum Wages Act. However, at the same time they are required to be paid the reasonable wage. According to the original writ applicants they are performing their duties full time and on the other hand it is the case on behalf of the respondent No.2 Board and the State that their services are part time and that they are required to perform their duties between 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. (9 a.m. to 1 p.m.). Considering the wages provided under the Minimum Wages Act and even the wages to be paid to the daily wagers/part time daily wagers, we are of the opinion that the original writ applicants shall be entitled to fair wages at Rs.6000/- per month which shall be as under. 11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the respective Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the State as well as original respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, Gandhinagar are hereby allowed/partly allowed. Impugned directions issued by the learned Single Judge directing the State and the original respondent No.2 – Gujarat Rural Labour Welfare Board, Gandhinagar to absorb all the original writ applicants – Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks on permanent basis and to treat them as government servants and a further direction directing to pay the salary to the original writ applicants commensurate with the Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks of the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad and/or at par with the Kendra Sanchalaks of Gujarat Labour Welfare Board, Ahmedabad is hereby quashed and set aside. However, it is observed and held and directed that the original writ applicants – concerned Kendra Sanchalaks/Jilla Sanchalaks shall be entitled to the wages at Rs.6000/- per month and Rs.7000/- per month respectively which shall be paid to them with effect from September 2014. They shall be continued to be paid daily allowances/Bhattha as being paid. The impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified to the aforesaid extent. In view of the above, the Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the original writ applicants are required to be dismissed/disposed of and are, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.