Equal pay for daily-rated workers depends on service conditions; pay parity was rejected, but minimum wages remained payable until regularization.

Daily-rated, casual and N.M.R. workers are not automatically entitled to the same wages and allowances as regularly appointed employees merely because they perform similar work. Pay parity depends on the broader service conditions, including recruitment terms, qualifications, status, responsibilities and the incidents of regular employment. The Court found no sufficient factual basis to presume equivalence in duties and rejected reliance on a cited decision as governing equal pay for N.M.R. workers, while treating the earlier directly applicable precedent as denying parity between daily-rated workers and regular staff. Until regularization, the workers were entitled only to the minimum wages prescribed or notified, if higher than the amount already paid.

---

---

Issues: Whether N.M.R./daily wage/casual workers were entitled, prior to regularization, to wages and allowances on the same scale as regularly employed staff, or only to minimum wages prescribed for such workers.

Analysis: The governing principle applied was that daily-rated or casual workers cannot be equated with regularly appointed employees merely because they perform similar work. Equality in pay depends not only on the nature of work but also on factors such as recruitment conditions, qualifications, status, responsibilities, and the overall incidents of regular service. The Court held that the decision relied upon by the workers did not decide the question of equal pay for N.M.R. workers, whereas the earlier decision directly on point had already rejected parity in pay between daily-rated workers and regular staff. The materials on record did not establish a sufficient factual basis for presuming equivalence in duties and responsibilities. However, the workers remained entitled to minimum wages prescribed or notified, if higher than what they were already receiving, until regularized.

Conclusion: The claim for pay parity with regularly employed staff was rejected, and the workers were held entitled only to minimum wages prior to regularization.

---