JUDGMENT P. D. Desai, C. J.—The petitioners are emyloyed as daily-rated workmen in the Himachal Pradesh Forest Printing Press at Kalaghat, Shilly Road, Solan (hereinafter referred to as "the Press"). The following table sets out the particulars of the date of commencement of employment of each petitioner and the nature of duties performed by him/her :— S.No. Name Nature of duties Date since when working on daily wages Approximate period of employment 1 2 3 4 5 1. Prem Chand (Petitioner No. 1) Packer 13-4-1977 10 Years 2. Kashmir Singh (Petitioner No. 4) Compositor 11-8-1979 7i Years 3. Ramesh Kumar (Petitioner No. 2) Inker 22-8-1979 7k Years 4. Yashwant Singh (Petitioner No. 3) Inker 17-4-1980 7 Years 5. Tej Singh (Petitioner No. 5) Compositor 18-5-1980 7 Years 6. Miss Lalita Gupta (Petitioner No. 6) Proof-Reader 2-12-1981 5h Years 7. Mohan Lal (Petitioner No. 7) Distributor 9-3-1984 3 Years The payment of daily wages to the petitioners is being regulated according to the rates from time to time sanctioned by the competent authority (Deputy Commissioner, Solan). Beside the payment of daily wages as aforesaid, no other benefits are granted to the petitioners, except a weekly holiday although such benefits are admissible to the regular staff working against the permanent posts in the corresponding category. According to the petitioners, their employment is being subjected fictional or artificial breaks after every period of ninety days. The main grievance of the petitioners herein is two-fold : first, that the respondents are indulging in an unfair labour practice and are acting arbitrarily and unjustly by employing them as daily-rated workmen for such a length of time by administering causal breaks with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of regular workmen and, secondly, that they are being treated unfairly and unjustly in the matter of their emoluments and conditions of service as compared to the holders of regular posts of the corresponding categories and that thereby the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is being violated. 2. The petition is being assiduously contested and the defence is set out in the affidavit-in-reply dated August 11, 1986, filed by the Under Secretary (Forests) to the State Government. 3. 2. The petition is being assiduously contested and the defence is set out in the affidavit-in-reply dated August 11, 1986, filed by the Under Secretary (Forests) to the State Government. 3. On August, 19, 1986, the Court made a detailed interim order directing the State Government to review the case of the petitioners and to place on the record of the case a fresh decision arrived at in accordance with law any in light of the observations made in the said inter m order on or before September 4, 1986. The Court observed also that unless the decision was accordingly recorded within the time limited, the Court would proceed to decide the case in accordance with law. The Court further directed that the practice of giving artificial or fictional breaks at the interval of ninety days or at any other regular interval(s) to the petitioners and persons similarly situate and, indeed, to all the daily-wage employees in the Forest Department of the State Government be forthwith discontinued and such breaks, if any, administered in the past were ordered to be condoned. The petitioners were directed to be paid the salary and allowances for all the days covered by such artificial or fictional breaks from the dates of their initial appointment and such payment was ordered to be made within a period of six weeks from the date of the said order. A copy of the said interim order is annexed hereto and be read as forming part of this judgment. 4. Civil Misc, Petition No. 3242 of 1985, was instituted on behalf of the respondents on September 6/8, IS86, seeking extension of time by five months to implement the directions contained in the interim order. The said Civil Misc. Petition was listed for orders on October 29, 1986. The Court passed the following order, in the main matter, on the said day : "The Courts peremptory order dated August 19, 1986, has still not been complied with- The request made in the Civil Misc. Petition No, 3242 of 1986 is manifestly unreasonable and it cannot be accepted. In fact, such a request gives an impression to the Court that the attempt on the part of the State Government is to circumvent the orders of this Court on one ground or the other. Petition No, 3242 of 1986 is manifestly unreasonable and it cannot be accepted. In fact, such a request gives an impression to the Court that the attempt on the part of the State Government is to circumvent the orders of this Court on one ground or the other. Under the circumstances, the State Government is directed to implement the orders of this Court peremptorily on or before November 14, 1986. The compliance report to be filed on or before November 15, 1986. A Contempt Petition is stated to have been filed by the petitioners alleging non-compliance of the Courts order dated August 19, 1986. The said petition be also listed alongwith this case before the Division Bench on the next day of hearing so that the matter could be dealt with also in the contempt jurisdiction. To be listed on November 17, 1986." 5. Yet another Civil Misc. Petition No. 3402 of 1986 was instituted on November 17, 1986, praying extension of time by two months to implement the directions contained in the interim order. The said Civil Misc. Petition was listed for orders on November 18, 1986, when the Court passed the following order : "The Court regrets to note that the observations made in the interim order dated October 29, 1986, passed in the main matter (CWP No. 512 of 1986) do not appear to have made any impact and that yet another application has been brought with a request for extension of time which must again be characterised as unreasonable and unacceptable. It appears to the Court that having regard to the exhaustive review of the case law on the subject and the findings and observations recorded and made in the detailed interim order passed on August 19, 1986, in the main matter, a reference to the Law Department is an exercise in futility. However, even if such a reference is considered necessary for any reason whatever, the Court feels justified in entertaining the belief that the Law Department, which is manned by trained and experienced Judicial Officers drawn from the Higher Judicial Service/Judicial Service of the State, will not take more than 48 hours to clear the reference so as to enable the administrative department to take expeditious steps in the direction of the implementation of the interim order aforementioned. Under the circumstances, in order to give one more opportunity to the State Government to implement the directions issued in the interim order dated August 19, 1986, time is extended till November 28, 1986." 6. One more Civil Misc. Petition, Civil Misc. Petition No. 3573 of 1986, was instituted on December 2, 1986, stating that the applicants (original respondents) had filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court of India November, 28, 1986 and that two months time may be allowed to obtain appropriate decision in the said Special Leave Petition. The following order was passed in the said Civil Misc. Petition on December 2, 1986 :- "This is an application instituted today praying that since the applicants (original respondents in the writ petition) have filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court of India on November 28, 1986 against the interim order dated August 19, 1986 passed in the main matter, namely, Civil Writ Petition No. 512 of 1986, Prem Chand and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, two months period may kindly be allowed to the respondents to obtain fresh decision in the case of the petitioners from the Honble Supreme Court of India, The orders from time to time passed in the main case and in the Civil Miscellaneous Applications are on the record. The interim order dated August 19, 1986, after an exhaustive review of the case law, directed the State Government, inter-alia, to review the case and to take a fresh decision in accordance with Jaw and in light of the observations made therein, in respect of the regularisation of services and the payment of lawful wages to the original petitioners, on or before September 4, 1986. An application for extension of time (Civil Misc. Petition No. 3242 of 1986) was instituted on behalf of the respondents on September 6, 1986, on the ground that more time was required to comply with the interim order since it has to be got done at Government level. it is possible that it may take five months to arrive at the decision at Government level. The prayer, therefore, was that in the interest of justice, five months period be allowed for taking fresh decisions on the case in light of the observations made in the interim order abovementioned. it is possible that it may take five months to arrive at the decision at Government level. The prayer, therefore, was that in the interest of justice, five months period be allowed for taking fresh decisions on the case in light of the observations made in the interim order abovementioned. Before the application could be listed for orders and any orders could be passed thereon, the original petitioners instituted Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 74 of 1986 on October 16,1986 alleging that no part of the direction issued in the interim order dated August 19, 1986 had been complied with and that there was thus a wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents to the lawful orders passed by the Court and seeking appropriate reliefs. On October 29, 1986 orders were passed on Civil Misc. Petition No. 3242 of 1986/Civil Writ Petition No. 512 of 1986 (main case) and the State Government was directed to implement the interim order dated August 19, 1986 on or before November 14, 1986. The Contempt Petition and the main case were directed to be listed together on November 17, 1986. On November 17, 1966, yet another application for extension of time (Civil Misc. Petition No, 3402 of 1986), was instituted on behalf of the respondents. In para 4 of the said application, reference was made to certain correspondence exchanged between the Chief Conservator of Forests and the State Government in regard to the implementation of the interim order aforementioned and it was stated, inter-alia, that the State Government had referred the case to Law Department for suitable advice and that it is not possible to get the opinion of Law Department, Himachal Pradesh, by i5-il-1986\ The prayer, therefore, was that minimum two months time to enable the State Government to take decision for the implementation of the directions issued in the interim order be allowed in the interest of justice. By an order made on November 18, 1986, time was extended till November 28, 1986. The main case and the Contempt Petition were adjourned to December 1, 1986 in view of the said order. The present application has to be considered in light of the representations made in those applications and the orders passed thereon in light of those representations. By an order made on November 18, 1986, time was extended till November 28, 1986. The main case and the Contempt Petition were adjourned to December 1, 1986 in view of the said order. The present application has to be considered in light of the representations made in those applications and the orders passed thereon in light of those representations. Before we do so, however, we have thought it proper to draw the attention of the learned Advocate General to the decision in Advocate General of Bihar v. The High Court of Judicature at Patna, AIR 1986 SC 1980 and, more particularly, to certain observations therein made in paras 3 to 6. We have made it clear that his attention is not being drawn to the ruling on account of any conduct on his part in regard to the case in hand but only with a view to enabling him to consider tendering such advice as he considers fit and proper to the respondents in regard to the request made herein in light of the relevant observations therein mads. Adjourned to December 9, 1986.” 7. The foregoing narration of facts would show that neither the directions contained in the interim order made on August 19, 1986, have been implemented nor any relief obtained from the Supreme Court so far. The Court having given sufficient opportunity to the respondents to implement these directions and having found that the opportunity has not been availed of despite the pendency of a Contempt Petition, the case is being decide today. 8 The detailed interim order made on August 19, 1986, contains all the relevant material facts and also deals with the pleas in defence against the legal background and, for all intents and purposes, incorporates the decision on the question arising for determination in the present case. To repeat what has been stated in the said order would only be a futile exercise and lead to burdening the record. 9. To repeat what has been stated in the said order would only be a futile exercise and lead to burdening the record. 9. For the reasons recorded in the said interim order, the Court allows the petition and directs the respondents to pay the petitioners and to the other daily-rated workmen, if any, on the establishment of the Press who are similarly situate, the same salary and allowances as are paid to the regular and permanent employees of the corresponding categories with effect from the day each one of the petitioners and such persons, if any, was respectively employed. The petitioners and such persons, if any, will also be paid the salary and allowances for the fictional breaks given to them during the entire period of the employment of each one of them. The respondents will comply with these directions and deposit in the Registry of this Court the arrears becoming due and payable to each of them on or before April 30, 1987. The future salary and allowances will be paid accordingly for the period commencing from April, 1987. The respondents will also deposit in the Registry of this Court within the same time-limit a sum of Rs. 500 which is assessed as costs of this petition. The fictional or artificial breaks, if any, will be forthwith discontinued, 10. The Court places on record its sense of regret that the petitioners are being employed on daily-wage basis without their services being regularised for such length of time. The fact that the Press is not a temporary establishment and that the employment has continued for so long is indicative that there is need for additional permanent posts. It is not at all desirable that any management and, more particularly, the State Government should continue to employee persons on casual basis under such fact- situation. It would be legitimate to hope that in conformity with the modern concept of justice and fair play and with its avowed commitment to the constitutional mandate of socio-economic justice, the State Government will take appropriate action in the direction of regularising the services of the petitioners and also of all those daily-rated workmen who have been in continuous employment for more than six months. 11. 11. Before parting with the case, the Court would like to observe that the question of the jurisdiction of this Court to deal with and decide the case on merits has been examined in light of the provisions of section 15 sub-section (1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In view of the fact that the petitioners are daily-rated employees, who are not holding appointment to any civil service of the State or any civil posts under the State, the bar of jurisdiction does not come in the way and this Court is competent to adjudicate upon the dispute as to wages herein raised. This legal position has been examined by this Court in its order rendered today in Civil Writ Petition No. 559 of 1984 (Jagdev Singh v. State and others) and in light of the said legal position the Court has dealt with and decided the case. 12. The Court also would like to place on the record that the disposal of the writ petition in terms aforesaid does not affect the pendency of the Contempt Petition which will be decided in due course in accordance with law. 13. Rule made absolute accordingly in terms aforesaid. 14. Dasti copy on usual terms. Rule made absolute.