ORDER : A. S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. The present application is filed for joining the respondent No.3 – Tribhuvandas Sahkari University, as a party respondent in the captioned appeal. 2. Learned advocate Mr.U. T. Mishra, has submitted that during the pendency of the captioned appeal, the respondent No.1 – Institute of Rural Management, Anand has now become – Tribhuvandas Sahkari University. A notification in this regard is also published, which is annexed at Annexure-A to the application. It is urged that the present application may be allowed and the applicants may be permitted to join the said University as respondent No.3 in the captioned appeal. 3. Having regard to the aforenoted submission as well as the averments made in the application, the same deserves to be allowed. 4. Registry is directed to amend the cause title accordingly. 5. The present application stands allowed. ORDER ON LETTERS PATENT APPEAL : 1. The present appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.03.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.8276 of 2010 filed by the respondent – Institute of Rural Management, challenging the award dated 09.03.2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Reference (IT) No.752 of 1998 (old No.239 of 1993). 2. From the statement of demand dated 27.09.1994 made by the appellant – Union, it appears that the Union had raised a claim for permanent grade, including benefits such as Dearness Allowance, Bonus, Medical Allowance, Leave Travel Concession, various types of leaves, and other service benefits as are applicable to permanent employees. 3. The Tribunal, under the provisions of Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was called upon to adjudicate the following reference : - “Whether the workmen of gardening department are entitled to Grade Pay, Allowances, Leaves, Medical Allowances, Bonus, LTC and all other benefits from 01.01.1988, at par with the regular employees or not ?” 4. It appears that 66 employees of such department had raised the demand and were referred in the award passed by the Tribunal. 5. Initially, when the reference was registered in the year 1993, it appears that, from the year 1997 onwards, the contract for gardening work was handed over by the Institute to the Gujarat Environmental Service Society. It appears that 66 employees of such department had raised the demand and were referred in the award passed by the Tribunal. 5. Initially, when the reference was registered in the year 1993, it appears that, from the year 1997 onwards, the contract for gardening work was handed over by the Institute to the Gujarat Environmental Service Society. Consequently, the said respondent–Society was also joined as a party to the reference proceedings. 6. The Tribunal, in paragraph No.13 of the award, framed various issues for consideration. One of the key issues framed was whether the contract entered into between the Institute and the Society was a sham and bogus. 7. Upon consideration of the documentary as well as the oral evidence, the Tribunal has allowed the reference, directing the Institute to extend the claimed benefits to the concerned employees. This includes, those employees who had entered into a compromise during the pendency of the reference; and those, who had retired on or after 01.01.1998. The Tribunal further directed that all employees engaged in gardening work shall be entitled to the minimum pay-scale. For the intervening period, it was ordered that the employees shall be entitled to notional benefits, and their pay-scale shall be fixed accordingly. All consequential benefits arising out of such pay fixation, including retirement benefits, shall also be extended to the eligible employees. 8. The award passed by the Tribunal was challenged before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.8276 of 2010. The learned Single Judge has set aside the award on two primary grounds: (i) that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, and the award passed was beyond the scope of the reference; and (ii) that the Tribunal, without examining the scope of work, had mechanically applied the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work". The relevant factors required to be considered, while applying the said doctrine were neither discussed nor analyzed by the Tribunal. 9. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra, at the outset, has submitted that the Tribunal, after a threadbare examination of the demands raised by the appellant – Union, and upon consideration of both documentary and oral evidence, had rightly concluded in favour of the Union. The Tribunal has accordingly directed the Institute to confer the benefit of minimum regular pay-scale at par with other similarly situated regular employees. The Tribunal has accordingly directed the Institute to confer the benefit of minimum regular pay-scale at par with other similarly situated regular employees. He has further submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in setting aside the award by holding that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction and that the award was beyond the scope of the reference. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra, has further submitted that all 66 employees, who were before the Tribunal, were in fact employed by the Institute, and it was only during the pendency of the reference proceedings that the Institute entered into a contract with the Society, purportedly with a view to frustrate the demands of the employees. It is submitted that the Tribunal has, therefore, rightly held that the said contract was sham and bogus and accordingly, it cannot be said that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction or passed an award beyond the scope of the reference. He has submitted that the terms of reference, as noted above, and the statement of demand, clearly reflect that the employees had sought regular pay-scale and benefits as extended to regular employees of the Institute. It is submitted that the Tribunal, therefore, rightly answered the reference in favour of the appellant – Union. Insofar as the issue of "equal pay for equal work" is concerned, learned advocate Mr.Mishra has submitted that the Tribunal, after examining the nature of duties, length of service, and the nature of employment of each of the employees, who had been working for a long duration, rightly directed the Institute to extend them minimum regular pay-scale akin to that of the regular employees. Thus, it is strongly urged that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, which sets aside a well-reasoned award of the Tribunal, be quashed and set aside. 10. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Jigar Patel, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3, has submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the award passed by the Tribunal was set aside, does not warrant any interference, as the same is well-reasoned and sustainable in law. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction and travelled beyond the scope of the reference, and therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly set aside the award after placing reliance on relevant judgments of the Supreme Court. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction and travelled beyond the scope of the reference, and therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly set aside the award after placing reliance on relevant judgments of the Supreme Court. With regard to the aspect of conferring minimum regular pay-scale to the employees, it is submitted by him that there were no regular employees engaged by either the Institute or the contractor for carrying out gardening work and thus, the Tribunal erred in directing the regular pay- scale to be extended to the 66 employees concerned. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider or discuss the relevant factors such as the pay-scale of other regular employees, the nature of their duties, and the mode of their recruitment, all of which are crucial for applying the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work". Learned advocate Mr.Patel has further submitted that the initial burden lies upon the employees to establish that they were performing similar work under similar conditions as those of the regular employees, however, no such evidence was led by the employees before the Tribunal. In view of these deficiencies, the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the award of the Tribunal, and the impugned order deserves to be upheld. 11. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, at length. 12. As noted hereinabove, the learned Single Judge has set aside the award dated 09.03.2010 passed by the Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 752 of 1998 on two distinct grounds: (i) that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by passing an award beyond the scope of the reference made to it; and (ii) that the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" was applied mechanically, without examining the relevant factors or the necessary evidence in support of the claim for conferment of regular pay-scale to the respondent–employees. 13. We propose to address the second issue first, as it constitutes the substantive core of the dispute, namely, the claim for regular pay-scale by the employees. The statement of demand made by 66 employees before the Tribunal reveals that they had specifically sought permanent grade and all ancillary allowances, including Dearness Allowance, Bonus, Medical Allowance, Leave Travel Concession, and various types of leave, which are extended to the regular employees. 14. The statement of demand made by 66 employees before the Tribunal reveals that they had specifically sought permanent grade and all ancillary allowances, including Dearness Allowance, Bonus, Medical Allowance, Leave Travel Concession, and various types of leave, which are extended to the regular employees. 14. A plain reading of the statement of demand indicates that the employees had admitted of being engaged in gardening, canteen, sweeping, and other allied duties in the Institute for several years. This demand eventually culminated into a formal reference before the Tribunal, which was framed as under: - “Whether the workmen of gardening department are entitled to Grade Pay, Allowances, Leaves, Medical Allowances, Bonus, LTC and all other benefits from 01.01.1988, at par with the regular employees or not ?” 15. In order to substantiate the claim for regular pay-scale, the Union examined two witnesses. The first witness, Jasbhai Ambalal Jadav, was examined at Exh.167. In his cross- examination, he admitted that he was educated up to the 8 th Standard, and that he had been employed by the Institute without any formal appointment order. He further admitted that he was paid daily wages based on the nature and requirement of the work assigned to him. He has also candidly admitted that whenever the institute required regular employees, such appointments were made only after inviting applications through public advertisement. Additionally, he admitted that he was issued a Pass by the Institute to enter the premises, but that he did not possess any appointment letter, muster card, identity card, or wage slip. The second witness examined was Chiman Ramjibhai Jadav at Exh.162, who deposed on similar lines. He admitted that, with effect from 01.04.1997, the Institute had outsourced the gardening work to a contractor – the Society, and since then, the work was being handled by the contractor. He also admitted that he was engaged by the contractor to perform gardening duties. Notably, he further admitted that he was terminated on 08.10.1997, i.e., the date on which he gave his deposition before the Tribunal. 16. Thus, the evidence led by the witnesses examined on behalf of the Union clearly reveals that the concerned employees were engaged as daily wagers, as per the requirement of work, and were not issued any appointment orders. Notably, he further admitted that he was terminated on 08.10.1997, i.e., the date on which he gave his deposition before the Tribunal. 16. Thus, the evidence led by the witnesses examined on behalf of the Union clearly reveals that the concerned employees were engaged as daily wagers, as per the requirement of work, and were not issued any appointment orders. Furthermore, from the year 1997 onwards, the gardening work was assigned to the contractor – Society, and the employees were thereafter entrusted work by the said contractor. 17. At this stage, we have threadbare examined the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, based on the very same evidence, has come to the conclusion that the employees had been working with the Institute for a long duration and were therefore entitled to minimum regular pay-scale, at par with regular employees. 18. In our considered opinion, such a finding runs contrary to the settled legal principles governing the application of the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work". In order to claim regular pay-scale at par with regular employees, who are performing similar duties, the initial burden lies on the employees to establish, by cogent evidence, that they are performing identical or substantially similar duties as those performed by the regular employees, who are extended such pay-scale benefits. However, there is not even a semblance of such evidence discussed or relied upon by the Tribunal in its award. The learned Single Judge, in this context, has rightly observed in paragraph No. 36 as under : - “36. Apart from this finding, the impugned award granting all service benefits of the permanent employees to the workmen is also unsustainable. The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others V/s. Charanjit Singh and others etc. (Supra), clearly held that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of law. However, at the same time, it was made clear that equal pay must be for equal work of equal value and it has no mechanical application in every case. Several factors were enumerated and the said doctrine requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. However, at the same time, it was made clear that equal pay must be for equal work of equal value and it has no mechanical application in every case. Several factors were enumerated and the said doctrine requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. In Official Liquidator V/s. Dayanand and others, (2008) 10 SCC 1 , the Apex Court has clearly held that in exercise of power vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot issue a mandamus and compel the State and its instrumentalities / agencies to regularize the services of temporary /ad hoc / daily wager / casual / contract employees and directions cannot be issued to the public employer to prescribe or give similar pay scales to employees appointed through different modes, with different conditions of service and different sources of payment.” 19. We are in complete agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge. The doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” cannot be applied in a mechanical manner, as it is not an abstract or absolute principle. Its application must be based on a comparative analysis of several relevant factors, including the nature of duties performed, qualifications, mode of recruitment, responsibilities, and conditions of service, as elaborated by the Supreme Court in various decisions, which have been rightly relied upon by the learned Single Judge. 20. We are also in agreement with the observations of the learned Single Judge that the benefit of regular pay-scale or regularization cannot be conferred upon an employee without a detailed examination of critical factors, including the nature of appointment, the specific duties assigned, the conditions of service, and the source of remuneration. The Tribunal has failed to undertake any such examination while allowing the reference in favour of the employees. There is neither discussion in the award, nor any material evidence on record, to demonstrate that the employees engaged in gardening were performing duties of a similar nature to those of the regular employees in the same department of the Institute. In the absence of any convincing or corroborative evidence, the Tribunal has manifestly erred in directing the Institute to confer the minimum regular pay-scale to these employees, that too with retrospective effect from the year 1988. 21. Accordingly, on this sole ground, we are not inclined to entertain the present appeal. In the absence of any convincing or corroborative evidence, the Tribunal has manifestly erred in directing the Institute to confer the minimum regular pay-scale to these employees, that too with retrospective effect from the year 1988. 21. Accordingly, on this sole ground, we are not inclined to entertain the present appeal. We, therefore, do not propose to examine the other issue relating to the jurisdiction exercised by the Tribunal in passing the award. The appeal fails. The same is dismissed.