JUDGMENT : (Pranav Trivedi, J.) 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed by the appellant – original respondent assailing the correctness and validity of the judgment and order dated 23.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.6501 of 2010. 2. The petition preferred by the respondent – Corporation prayed for issuing appropriate direction for quashing and setting aside the judgment and award dated 19.03.2009 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Reference (IT) No.43 of 1997. 3. The learned Single Judge after hearing the arguments made by both the parties came to a conclusion that even though a person was entitled to equal pay for equal work, the absence of qualification would not entail a person to claim the benefits of co-employees. On the basis of such observation, the petition preferred by the respondent Municipal Corporation was allowed and the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal was quashed and set aside. 4. The factual matrix which has led to filing of the writ petition was that the appellant was initially employed as a Rojamdar in the respondent Corporation in the year 1962. On 04.06.1970, the appellant was appointed as a permanent Sepoy and remained a Sepoy till his retirement. It was the case of the appellant that on 19.03.1995, he was given the work of the post of Junior Clerk on the basis that another Junior Clerk, namely, Shri Rasikbhai Sheth had passed away. Therefore, it was the case of the appellant that he was given the post as Junior Clerk on 19.03.1995. When the salary given to the appellant was that of permanent Sepoy, the appellant was aggrieved by payment of the salary and raised the grievance that when he was working on the post of Junior Clerk he should have been given the salary of Junior Clerk. Grievance culminated into registration of reference being Reference (IT) No. 43 of 1997. The appellant filed its statement of claim and subsequently the respondent Corporation filed its written statement. The learned Industrial Tribunal vide award and judgment dated 19.03.2009 came to the conclusion that appellant should have been given the pay scale of a Junior Clerk with effect from 19.03.1995 till the date of his superannuation. Award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal was challenged by way of a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 6501 of 2010. The learned Industrial Tribunal vide award and judgment dated 19.03.2009 came to the conclusion that appellant should have been given the pay scale of a Junior Clerk with effect from 19.03.1995 till the date of his superannuation. Award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal was challenged by way of a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 6501 of 2010. Learned Single Judge after hearing the arguments of both the sides was pleased to allow the petition filed by the respondent Corporation and quash and set aside the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal. This order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6501 of 2010 is assailed in the present appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. Rutvij S. Oza, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. H. S. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the respondent. 6. Mr. Oza, learned advocate has submitted that the Corporation was aware about the qualification of the appellant and despite such awareness, the appellant was made to work on the post of Junior Clerk for more than 12 years and therefore, the ground that the appellant being under-qualified could not have been raised by the respondent Corporation. It was further submitted that the order dated 04.03.1994 giving the charge of ward clerk to the appellant was already on record therefore, the learned Single Judge should have observed that the appellant was working on the post of Junior Clerk for more than 12 years. It was further submitted that the person on whose death the appellant was handed over the charge of a Junior Clerk was possessing much lower qualification that of the appellant and despite such aspect, the learned Single Judge has not considered the case of appellant and allowed the petition only on the ground that appellant was not possessing requisite qualification of 10th standard pass. It was therefore urged by Mr. Oza, learned advocate to allow the appeal and quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and restore the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal. 7. Per contra, Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate has submitted that the learned Industrial Tribunal has totally ignored the fact that the requisite qualification for the post of Junior Clerk was of passing 10th standard. The appellant not possessing that requisite qualification, would not be entitled for the pay of the post of Junior Clerk. 7. Per contra, Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate has submitted that the learned Industrial Tribunal has totally ignored the fact that the requisite qualification for the post of Junior Clerk was of passing 10th standard. The appellant not possessing that requisite qualification, would not be entitled for the pay of the post of Junior Clerk. It was further submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the charge of the post of Junior Clerk on the death of Shri Rasikbhai Sheth was given to the present appellant. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, the learned Industrial Tribunal committed grave error of giving the pay of a Junior Clerk to the present appellant. In wake of such submission, Mr.Munshaw has prayed to dismiss the appeal preferred by the present appellant. 8. We have heard the arguments canvassed by both the parties and also have gone through the material on record. Learned Single Judge has allowed the petition only on the aspect that the appellant was not possessing the requisite qualification of passing 10th standard. It is a settled law that an employee is entitled to equal pay for equal work. However, since the appellant was not possessing the qualification of 10th standard pass, the pay scale of Junior Clerk should not be given to him. Such finding of the learned Single Judge has to be introspected in wake of certain facts on record. It can be observed that before the Industrial Tribunal the evidence of appellant was recorded below Exh.27. There was a categorical statement made by the appellant that pursuant to the death of Shri Rasikbhai Sheth, he was given the work of a Junior Clerk from 04.03.1994 and that work was done by the appellant till the date of his retirement i.e. till the year 2007. It was also on record that after the appellant was made to work on the post of Junior Clerk, he was transferred to another department at Navapura in the place of another Junior Clerk, namely, Shri Lalubhai Vakani. Thereafter, again he was transferred to Krishannagar Ward. Such statements made by the appellant have not at all been controverted by the Municipal Corporation. 9. It also needs to be observed that the witness of the Corporation was examined and his examination-in-chief and cross-examination were recorded below Exh.38. Thereafter, again he was transferred to Krishannagar Ward. Such statements made by the appellant have not at all been controverted by the Municipal Corporation. 9. It also needs to be observed that the witness of the Corporation was examined and his examination-in-chief and cross-examination were recorded below Exh.38. In the examination-in-chief of the witness of the Corporation, namely, Shri S. D. Qureshi, some glaring facts have come on record. There were other five Junior Clerks whose list were given below Exh.30. It has been categorically accepted by the witness of Municipal Corporation that all these five employees who were working as Junior Clerk were not 10th standard pass. All of them were either 4th to 7th standard pass and all of them were doing the work of a Junior Clerk. It was also accepted by the witness that the work of the present appellant and that of other five Junior Clerks was the same and there was no difference in it. It is also a matter of record that the present appellant pursuant to working on the post of Junior Clerk had made an application on 16.11.1995 to give the acting allowance of a Junior Clerk. Corporation has not acted on such application. 10. All these facts would indicate that the appellant was working on the post of Junior Clerk and he had made a representation to give him the pay scale of Junior Clerk as well as acting allowance. When such facts are on record and when it is also on record that all other Junior Clerks were not having requisite qualification of 10th Std. Pass, in our considered opinion the finding given by the learned Single Judge of allowing the writ petition of the Corporation only on the ground of appellant not being 10th pass was completely erroneous. There is enough evidence on record to show that appellant was working on post of Junior Clerk and doing the same work as other Junior Clerks. Further all other Junior Clerks shown below Exh.30 were also not having requisite qualification of 10th Std. pass. Therefore, the principle of equal pay for equal work has to apply in case of appellant. There is enough evidence on record to show that appellant was working on post of Junior Clerk and doing the same work as other Junior Clerks. Further all other Junior Clerks shown below Exh.30 were also not having requisite qualification of 10th Std. pass. Therefore, the principle of equal pay for equal work has to apply in case of appellant. In wake of such finding, we deem it fit to conclude that the learned Industrial Tribunal was completely right in giving the benefit of pay scale of the Junior Clerk to the appellant from the year 1995 till the date of his retirement. 11. In wake of such finding, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. It is directed to the respondent Corporation to give the arrears to the appellant within a period of 8 weeks from the date of passing of this order. 12. Appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to cost.