ORDER : 1. The workman through Union has filed this petition seeking following reliefs: “8(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to (i) quash and set aside impugned award dated 21.01.2023 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference (I.T.) No.57 of 2016; (Ann-A) (ii) hold and declare that the concerned employees (28 in numbers as per the Reference order) are entitled to be absorbed as permanent employees in the establishment of respondent Board upon completion of ten years of service i.e. with effect from 2017 and further may be pleased to direct the respondents to extend the pay-scale as skilled employees in the pay of 18000 with pay band of 5200-20200 to all the concerned employees connected with the Reference; (iii) hold and declare that the action on part of the respondent Board in not in paying equal pay/equal salary to the concerned employees despite they being discharging same duty and not placing the concerned employees in the pay of 18000 in the pay band of 5200-20200 as illegal, unjust and further may be pleased to direct the respondent Board to give equal-pay-for-equal-work to the concerned employees i.e. to place them in the said pay-scale; (B) Pending the admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of equal-pay-for-equal-work to the concerned employees (28 in numbers as per the Reference order) and to place them in the pay of 18000 in the pay band of 5200-20200; (C) Any other and further relief or reliefs to which this Hon'ble Court deemed fit, in the interest of justice; may kindly be granted;” 2. It is case of the petitioner herein that award of Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara dated 21.01.2023, in Reference (IT) No.57 of 2016, not granting regularization to the workmen is erroneous because it has failed to consider number of years of service put in by the workmen. 3. Brief facts, as referred in the petition, are as under: The present petitioners represented through Union are employees of Contractor appointed for performing the work of respondent No.1- Board. 3. Brief facts, as referred in the petition, are as under: The present petitioners represented through Union are employees of Contractor appointed for performing the work of respondent No.1- Board. Since they were working as Daily wagers and having completed considerable number of years of service (approximately 17 years), they raised industrial dispute seeking regularisation registered as Reference (IT) No.57 of 2016. Upon adjudication, Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara rejected the reference. Aggrieved by which, the present petition is filed. 4. Heard Mr.Dipak Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner. He submitted that award of Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara is erroneous on the following grounds: 4.1 Admittedly, all the workmen are working since 2007. On account of outsourcing policy of the State accepted by the respondent-board, all the workmen were placed under the contractor through outsourcing agency after 2007. Though they are working under the Contractor, entire supervision of their work, is done by the board and only salary is paid by the Contractor. Since they were not regularized, they raised a dispute, registered as Reference (IT) No.57 of 2016, which came to be rejected on the ground that no grievance was made with regard to contract being sham or bogus contract. Learned advocate submitted that rejection of reference on the ground that no dispute was raised for contract being sham and bogus is erroneous because impliedly when regularization is sought, Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara ought to have gone into the merits of the contract. Further, despite application filed below Exh-30 seeking list of documents, no documents were produced though the same were in possession of the board. The Industrial Tribunal ought to have drawn adverse inference, which it failed and therefore, the order is erroneous. 4.2 Further, Contractor was not joined as party in the dispute raised before Industrial Tribunal and therefore, the finding that the issue was not in relation to sham and bogus contract, is not appropriate and the award deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4.3 In the alternative, learned advocate submitted that admittedly, since the petitioners are working since 2007 continuously, their cases ought to have been considered for grant of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ because all the workmen are working at par with the regular employees of the board and therefore, if not regularisation and at the most, they are entitled for ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’. In the depositions, the workmen, had stated that they are doing equal work as done by the regular employees of the board, which the Industrial Tribunal has ignored. 4.4 Placing reliance on the depositions of employees of the board, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in the depositions, Officer of the Board has accepted that at present work is done through outsourcing agency, which is contrary to the decision of this Court and therefore, outsourcing of the work through Contractor being illegal, they are entitled for ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’. 4.5 In support of his submissions, Learned Advocate relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others V/s. Jagjit Singh and others reported in (2017)1 SCC 148 (Para-42 to 56) to submit that when the equal work is being done by the workmen as done by the regular employees of the board, they are entitled for ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’. He thus submitted that award of Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara being erroneous deserves to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, this petition deserves consideration. 5. Considered the submissions and decision relied upon. Revisitation of the facts reveal that the dispute raised before Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara registered as Reference (IT) No.57 of 2016 was in relation to whether workmen working with the Contractor (the present petitioner) are entitled for regularisation or not. Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in that context, held that the reference cannot be proceeded with because all the workmen are engaged by the Contractor and there is no employer and employee relationship between the workmen and respondent No.1- board. This again being supported by the deposition of officer of the board in which he had stated that no documents are available and document sought for by filing application seeking production of documents could not be entertained because they are not in employment of the board and at present the work done by the workmen (present petitioners) is done through outsourcing agency. Very categorically the Officer of the board had stated that since they are not in employment of the board, they are not aware of completion of 240 days in a year and other details, which have been called for. Very categorically the Officer of the board had stated that since they are not in employment of the board, they are not aware of completion of 240 days in a year and other details, which have been called for. Most importantly, Contractor was not party to the proceedings since the dispute was in relation to regularisation of the workmen and not in relation to abolition of sham and bogus contract, as pleaded before this Court. Therefore, in view of the finding recorded by the Industrial Tribunal that since the workmen (present petitioners) are working through Contractor, they are not entitled for regularisation, deserves no interference. 6. It cannot be ignored that after 2007 i.e. after initial appointment, they were working through outsourcing agency continuously and no grievance was raised or their appointments through outsourcing agency have not been challenged before any Forum. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, all the workmen have accepted their working through outsourcing agency and it was not their case before Industrial Tribunal that appointment through outsourcing agency is not permissible. 7. The alternative relief prayed that, at least the workmen would be entitled for ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’, in the opinion of this Court, does not merit acceptance because before the Industrial Tribunal, prayer was not in relation to ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ and therefore, reliance placed on the order of the board dated 17.07.2022 at Annexure “C” Pg- 46 and order dated 11.10.2019 at Annexure “D” Pg-56, in the opinion of this Court is of no relevance. 8. For relief of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ ascertainment with regard to work, which is being done by the workmen (present petitioners) is to be compared with the regular employees, which has not been done in this case, because no such dispute was raised before the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, submission of learned advocate for the petitioner that Industrial Tribunal ought to have granted relief of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ does not merit acceptance. In the decision relied upon in the case of State of Punjab and others V/s. Jagjit Singh and others (supra), the issue was in relation to temporary workmen, despite doing similar work was not granted ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’. In the decision relied upon in the case of State of Punjab and others V/s. Jagjit Singh and others (supra), the issue was in relation to temporary workmen, despite doing similar work was not granted ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’. In the opinion of this Court, here the issue was not in relation to ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’, therefore the decision would not be applicable in facts of the present case. 9. In view of the above, particularly the petitioner-workmen since are working with respondent Board through outsourcing agency from 2007 and continuously worked thereafter, through outsourcing agency, the relief prayed for by the petitioner is not acceptable and no interference is called for in the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara. Hence, the petition is rejected. This Court has not gone into the merits of the contract, which in the submission of learned advocate for the petitioner, is sham and bogus. In view of above, present petition is rejected. No Cost.