ORDER
Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.
1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition with a prayer to quash the order dated 22nd April, 2000, passed by the Mines Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, wherein, inter alia, it has been observed that the representationists-cum-writ petitioners herein are not entitled to any parity of pay scale in view of the discussions, made in the aforesaid letter, and, accordingly, held that their representations deserve to be dismissed. Further prayer has been made to declare the set of rules under which the service conditions of the employees of Koderma Mica Unit of the Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation is to be regulated in respect of payment of salary of the petitioner or in the alternative, the petitioners have prayed to allow the pay scales at par to the similarly situated employees of the respondent-Corporation on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' and further to pay the arrears of salary with effect from of March. 1986 till date as per the policy decision adopted under the orders passed by this Court.
2. According to the petitioners, they were the employees of erstwhile Company i.e. M/s Eastern Manganese & Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Koderma and the mines operated by the said private Company were taken over by the erstwhile State of Bihar with effect from 9th March, 1986 under the order dated 27th August, 1985 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 3013-18 and 2116 of 1932, which is annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Even after the take over the petitioners were paid on daily rate wages.
3. The petitioners submit that the State of Bihar & others had appealed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India through Civil Misc. Petition No. 35248-54 of 1985 in respect of the affairs of the Mica Mines situated in and around Koderma District which were under the possession of the then private company under the name and style of M/s. Eastern Manganese & Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Koderma. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to order vide its interim direction dated 27.9.1985 that (a) the applicant corporation Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation, Ranchi be added as a party in Civil Appeal No. 3013-3018 of 1982 and in Civil No. 2116 of 1982 and (b) the Receiver appointed under order by the High Court of Calcutta or the payment of wage authority, Koderma are discharged and the State of Bihar is entitled to take possession of Mines and to deal with them in accordance with law.
4. According to the petitioners, the erstwhile Government of Bihar passed an order vide Memo No. 7608(M) Patna dated 26th December, 1986, wherein, the State Government decided to hand over the management of Mica Mines and its mining operations to the Bihar State Mineral-Development Corporation for and on behalf of the Government of Bihar. Earlier the employees of Koderma Mica Unit had grievances with the Management of Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation with regard to payment of salary and parity of pay scales and the same was turned down by the Mines Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, vide its order dated 22nd April, 2000, which is sought to be challenged in this writ petition.
5. Thereafter, the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 came into force with effect from 15th November, 2000 and the establishment of Koderma Mica Mines, including the mines, came under the territorial jurisdiction of the successor State of Jharkhand.
6. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that the State of Jharkhand Is under an obligation to decide the issue relating to parity of the pay scales of the petitioners. It has also been argued that Section 65 of the aforesaid Act and serial No. 24 of 9th Schedule of the said Act provides by -implication that the Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation has fallen in the share of the successor State of Jharkhand as regards the Head Office of Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation and also the Koderma Mica Unit as a whole and, as such, the continuing claim of parity of pay scale became the responsibility of the State of Jharkhand and the respondent Corporation.
7. According to the respondents, the petitioners are daily wage employees in Koderma Mica Unit and, according to them, the impugned order passed by the Mines Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, dated 22nd April, 2000 was legal and valid and the Government of Bihar, as it then was, continued to be the owner of Koderma Mica Unit and Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation is neither the owner nor the holder of any lease/Patta in that regard. Therefore, the claim of parity of pay scale by the petitioners is impermissible and illegal and cannot be sustained. It has further been submitted that Koderma Mica Unit is running at a great loss and it is a closed enterprises and the mining activity is completely stopped. It has further been contended that M/s Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation is a Public Sector Undertaking and, therefore, the service conditions are different and the question of parity of pay scale of the petitioners with the employees of Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation does not arise.
8. It has also been submitted that Koderma Mica Unit has got no legal connection/relation with Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation and they have only been entrusted to manage the aforesaid mines. The take-over was by state of Bihar and thereafter it was entrusted to Bihar State Mineral Development Commissioner in 1986 and even the impugned order under challenge was passed by the Mines Commissioner, Bihar and, thus, in any case, the petitioners are not the employees of Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation and they are only acting as a care taker on behalf of the State Government to manage the Koderma Mica Unit. There is no prayer for absorption/regularization.
9. The admitted fact remains that the petitioners are being paid the minimum wages fixed by the Central Government/State Government under the Minimum Wages Act.
10. I have considered the pleadings and the rival contentions raised by the parties. In the instant case, the petitioners were initially the workers of Eastern Manganese & Minerals Ltd., which was purely a private organization and the Company was dissolved vide order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3013-18 and 2116 of 1982 and the State of Bihar was asked to take possession of the mines and to deal with them in accordance with law. It appears that the petitioners had preferred a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 397 of 1992(R) before the Ranchi Bench of High Court of Judicature at Patna, seeking a similar relief with regard to parity of pay scale and allowances and the High Court while refusing to pass any order, directed the petitioners to agitate the matter before the authority concerned.
11. Thereafter L.P.A. Mo. 63 of 1999(R) was also preferred by the petitioners and a Division Bench of Patna High Court vide its order dated 14th February, 2000 clarified the order, passed by the learned Single Judge, and held that the same will not come in the way of the Government in deciding the appellants' claim on its own merit. Even in this order, which has attained finality, it was left to the State Government to decide the same on Its own merit and no direction was issued to the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation and, thus, even otherwise the claim is unsustainable, illegal and against the mandate of the order, passed by the High Court. Pursuant to the order, passed by this Court, a representation was filed by the petitioners before the Secretary, Mines & Geology Department, Government of Bihar, who was pleased to pass the order dated 22nd April, 2000, dismissing the representation regarding the claim for parity of pay scales with other employees, which is sought to be challenged in this writ petition.
12. It is an admitted case that the petitioners are being paid daily wages from the time of take over under the Minimum Wages Act and, thus, as per the settled law, the claim of parity of pay scale with permanent employees of JSMDC is unsustainable and liable to be rejected.
13. 'Parity' means equality in all circumstances. In the instant case, the basic ingredient for sustaining the claim of parity of pay scale, the petitioners have to be identically placed still discriminated. They have to be the employees of Jharkhand State: Mineral Development Corporation to claim parity, which they are admittedly not. Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation, has been entrusted only to manage the affairs of the now closed unit falling under the territorial jurisdiction of Jharkhand and, thus, the petitioners cannot raise a grievance for claim parity.
14. Even otherwise, as per the settled law, the claim of parity in pay scale is dependent upon various factors and this issue is no more res-integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh as reported in : (2006)ILLJ431SC , has held that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has no application to the persons employed on contract basis or on daily wage basis and It will be their terms and conditions of service, which will be applicable.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in an identical case, as reported in : (1989)IILLJ466SC (Harbans Lal v. State of H.P.), held that daily rated workmen, who were before the Court in that case, were entitled to be paid minimum wages admissible to such workmen as prescribed and not the minimum in the pay scale applicable to similar employees in regular service. It is well settled that scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager he holds no post. Admittedly, the petitioners are engaged on daily wage basis and, thus, their comparison and parity with the regular and permanent staff of the Corporation for equal pay and allowances is erroneous and unsustainable. It is even otherwise dependent upon nature of duties, nature of job, nature of employment and, thus, it is not possible to hold that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is an abstract one. In fact, it is also dependent upon educational qualification but above all, the pre-condition itself Is lacking unless they are absorbed or declared to be the employees of the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation, the question or claim for parity in the pay scale cannot and does not arise and, thus, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
16. There is nothing on the record to show that their duties and functions were similar. There is nothing on the record to even suggest that they are the employees of the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation nor there is any prayer for absorption or regularization. There is nothing on the record to suggest that they were ever paid by the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation instead it is an admitted case that they continued to work on daily rated basis and the respondent Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation is only a caretaker of the mines, in question. Above all, I am informed and which has not been denied that Koderma Mica Unit has already been closed and even the daily rated employees, who were engaged by the Mica Unit, are being paid with great difficulty and hardship.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Putti Lal as reported in (2006)9 SCC 337 at para-5 has held as under;
5. In several cases this Court applying the principle of equal pay for equal work has held that a daily-wager, if he is discharging the similar duties as those in the regular employment of the Government, should at least be entitled to receive the minimum of the pay scale though he might not be entitled to any increment or any other allowance that is permissible to his counterpart in the Government. In our opinion that would be the correct position and we, therefore, direct that these daily-wagers would be entitled to draw at the minimum of the pay scale being received by their counterparts in the Government and would not be entitled to any other allowances or increment so long they continue as daily-wagers. The question of their regular absorption will obviously he dealt with in accordance with the statutory titles already referred to..
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in : AIR2007SC3021 titled as S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand at paragraph 37 held as under.:
Similarly, in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretarial Personal Staff Assn. the principle of equal pay for equal work was considered in great detail. In paras 9 and 10 of the said judgment the Supreme Court observed that equation of posts and salary is a complex matter which should be left to on expert body. The courts must realize that the job is both a difficult and time consuming task which even experts having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found it difficult to undertake. Fixation of pay and determination of parity is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. Granting of pay parity by the court may result in cascading effect and reaction which can have adverse consequences vide Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey.
It is a settled law that unless there is an employer and employee relationship the corporation cannot be saddled with parity in employment and or parity in pay scale or salary. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of holding that even if two groups of employees are doing the same work yet they can be given different pay scales if the educational qualifications are different, nature of job is different, responsibilities are different, experience and method of recruitment is different. There has to be a wholesale Identity. In the instant case the petitioners are neither holding any post nor are the employees of the Corporation.
19. In the aforesaid background, the claim of the petitioners for parity in pay scale is unsustainable since there is no employer and employee relationship, they are yet to be regularized and are working on daily rated wages. Their recruitment process was different, they were never appointed by the respondent corporation neither the Hon'ble Supreme Court nor the Hon'ble High Court issued any direction in this regard.
20. In the aforesaid background, this writ petition being devoid of any merit Is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.