summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. The principleof 'equal pay for equal work' has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as workcharge, daily-wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees, has been summarized by us, in paragraph 44 hereinabove. The above legal positionwhichhas been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again. 55. In our considered view, It is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his Integrity. For he knows, that his dependentswould suffer Immensely, If he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emergingoutofa domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels Involuntary subjugation. 57. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees,ad-hoc appointees, empioyees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the concerned employees (beforethis Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities,aswere being discharged by regular employees, holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' summarized by us in paragraph 42 above. However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the factual position. We say so, because it was fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel representing the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the present bunch of appeals, were appointed against postswhich were also available In the regular cadre/establishment. It was also accepted, that during the course of their employment, the concerned temporary employees were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities, which at some point in time, were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts, were also posted to discharge the same work, which was assigned to temporary employees, from time to time. There Is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary empioyees in the present set of appeais, were the same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the appeilants, that the respondent-employeesdidnot possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State, that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity, on any of the principles summarized by us In paragraph 42hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal
