Equal pay for equal work denied where workers were not bank employees and had no service relationship for regularisation.

Employees of a company in liquidation could not claim higher pay scale, allowances, or regularisation in the bank's service because they were never appointed by the bank and had no employment relationship with it. The principle of equal pay for equal work did not apply in the absence of parity in employment status, and payments made through the official liquidator were only advances for watch and ward charges and salary, recoverable from the company's assets. The writ petition was dismissed because no legal right to the claimed service benefits was established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners, who were employees of a company in liquidation and not of the bank, were entitled to higher pay scale and allowances on the principle of equal pay for equal work and to regularisation in the bank's service.

Analysis: The petitioners were not appointed by the bank and were not its employees. They had been working for the company in liquidation, and the amounts paid by the secured creditors were only advances directed to be made to the official liquidator for payment of watch and ward charges and salary, recoverable from the company's assets. In the absence of any employment relationship with the bank or any legal right to claim parity with the bank's security staff, the claim for higher pay scale and allowances could not be sustained. The claim for regularisation also failed for the same reason.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to the reliefs sought, and the writ petition was dismissed.

---