JUDGMENT 1. - This order will decide three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India namely S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2109/86 (Hemraj Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan) ; S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2111/86, (Yogendra Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan) ; and S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2112/86 (Ramdhan Yadav v. State of Rajasthan) , by a common order as same facts and same questions of law are involved in all these three writ petitions. 2. In all of them the respective petitioners pray that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated Sept.30,1986 whereby their services were terminated may be declared illegal and set aside and the respondent State may be directed to allow them to continue on the post of L.D.C. in the Office of the Director, State Insurance and Provident Fund in the regular pay scale with all consequential benefits and that the respondent may be directed to pay to them the salary in regular pay scale of L.D.C. 3. According to the petitioners, State Insurance and Provident Fund Department of the State of Rajasthan is 'industry' within the meaning assigned to this word by section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, hereinafter, "the Act"). Hemraj Gurjar and Yogendra Kumar petitioners were initially appointed as LDCs on daily wages in the aforesaid Department vide order dated 21.2.85 (Ann.1) and similarly petitioner Ramdhan Yadav was appointed vide order dated 25.2.85. They continued as LDC till 12.9.85 when a gap of 3 days was given. They were again appointed as LDC on daily wages with effect from 16.9.85 and continued to work as such till 2.12.85 when another break of three days was given. They were again taken on duty as L.D.C. with effect from 6.12.85 and continued on daily wages till 30.4.86. Then a break of 11 days was given and they were re-appointed as L.D.C. with effect from 12.5.86 and they continued as such upto 11.8.86. Then a break of eight days was given and they were again taken on duty as LDC on 20.8.86 on daily wages. Ultimately the services of all the three petitioners was terminated with effect from 30.9.86 vide order Annexure-4 which has been challenged by them. 4. Then a break of eight days was given and they were again taken on duty as LDC on 20.8.86 on daily wages. Ultimately the services of all the three petitioners was terminated with effect from 30.9.86 vide order Annexure-4 which has been challenged by them. 4. They plead that they were "workmen" under section 2(j) of the Act and they have been retrenched without complying with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act as neither one month's notice nor pay in lieu thereof has been given to them and nor they have been paid any compensation with the order of termination of their services. It is further alleged that neither the posts have been abolished nor any other person has been appointed as LDC and the posts of LDCs are still lying vacant in the department and the services of the petitioners have been terminated for no justifiable reason and in violation of the principles of natural Justice. The respondent gave artificial breaks in the services of the petitioners which amounted to unfair labour practice. Lastly, it is stated that non-paying to the petitioners of salary in regular pay-scale of LDCs was discriminatory and against the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work". 5. According to the respondent, State Insurance and Provident Fund Department of the State is not an "industry" as this department is discharging regal functions of the State. It is also said that judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1720/1985 is subjudice before the Apex Court. The respondent states that the petitioners were appointed on daily wage contract. Services of the petitioners were terminated on the expiry of the term of contract. The term of temporary vacancies was only upto 30.9.86. As the terms of these temporary vacancies was not extended by the State Government beyond 30.9.86, services of daily wage employees working against these vacancies were terminated in terms of their contract. It is also said that the duties of the petitioners pertained to clearance of arrears in the Department and their job was not similar to the regular cadre of LDCs appointed under the Rajasthan Subordinate Service Rules. Principle of "Equal pay for Equal work" was not applicable. Lastly, it is said that the petitioners have alternative remedy of raising an 'industrial dispute' and in the alternative of going before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. Principle of "Equal pay for Equal work" was not applicable. Lastly, it is said that the petitioners have alternative remedy of raising an 'industrial dispute' and in the alternative of going before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. 6. So far as factual aspect is concerned, it is clear from Annexure-1 that petitioners Hemraj Gurjar and Yogendra Kumar Gupta were on 21.2.85 appointed as LDCs on daily wages of Rs. 15/- per day excluding Gazetted holidays and its was provided that their services can be terminated at any time without prior notice. They continued till 12.9.85. Again they were appointed as LDCs on daily wages from 16.9.85 to 31.10.85 by order dated 5.12.85 (Ann.2). They continued to work upto 2.12.85. Again the petitioners worked from 6.12.85 to 30.4.86. Thereafter, after a gap of 11 days, they were again appointed as LDCs on daily wages for three months with effect from 12.5.86 by order dated 13.6.86 (Ann.3). They continued to work as LDC upto 11.8.86. The petitioners made an application to Dy.Director, Kota dated 20.8.86 (Ann.R/1) for appointing them as LDC on daily wages. They worked as LDC on daily wages, from 20.8.86 in State Insurance and General Provident Fund Department at Baran and ultimately in compliance of a D.O. letter dated 10.9.86 from the Head Office at Jaipur, their services were terminated with effect from 30.9.86 by the impugned order Annexure-4. More or less, the same are the facts pertaining to Ram Dhan Yadav petitioner except that he was for the first time appointed as LDC on daily wages on 25.2.85 and not on 21.2.85. 7. The first question which calls for determination is, whether the State Insurance and Provident Fund Department of the State of Rajasthan is an 'industry' within the meaning assigned to this word by section 2(j) of the Act. 7. The first question which calls for determination is, whether the State Insurance and Provident Fund Department of the State of Rajasthan is an 'industry' within the meaning assigned to this word by section 2(j) of the Act. Reference may here be made to Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, which inter alia provides that 'a Government servant may be required to contribute to the compulsory State Life Insurance Scheme in accordance with such rules as Government may by order prescribe.' Rule 21-B provides that a Government servant may be required to subscribe to the General Provident Fund in accordance with rules made by the Government in this behalf from time to time including crediting of any instalment of dearness allowance or arrears of dearness allowance to the General Provident Fund in accordance with the orders issued by the Government from time to time. Rajasthan Service Rules were made in exercise of the powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the Raj Pramukh of Rajasthan. The provision contained in Rules 21 and 21-B of Rajasthan Service Rules, therefore, lay down conditions of service of persons appointed to service and posts in connection with the affairs of Rajasthan. 8. The State Government framed the necessary rules with regard to the contribution by Government servants to the compulsory State Life Insurance Scheme. The Director, State Insurance is In charge of the Department. The payment of the benefits and other sums payable under insurance contract are guaranteed by the Government from the consolidated fund of the State Insurance premiums are payable monthly by deduction of the premium amount from the monthly salary of the insured Government servant. The premium amount is payable every month till the death of the insured or until 31st March immediately preceding the date on which the insured has completed 58 years age. So far as provident fund is concerned, the State Government has framed General Provident Fund (Rajasthan Services) Rules, 1954, which deals with contributions to be made by Government servants to the General Provident Fund operated by the department. 9. It is well settled that the operations of the Government which are administrative or Governmental character cannot be regarded as an industry. Regal functions are inescapable and inalienable. 9. It is well settled that the operations of the Government which are administrative or Governmental character cannot be regarded as an industry. Regal functions are inescapable and inalienable. It was not in the contemplation of the Parliament to bring in the regal functions of the State within the definition of 'industry'. In Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A Rajappa ( AIR 1978 SC 548 ) His Lordship KJyer, J., observed as under: "In any case, it is open to Parliament to make law which governs the State's relations with its employees. Articles 309 to 311 of the Constitution of India, the enactments dealing with the Defence Forces and other legislation dealing with employment under statutory bodies may, expressly or by necessary implication, exclude the operation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That is a question of interpretation and statutory exclusion; but, in the absence of such provision of law, it may indubitably be assumed that the key aspects of public administration like public Justice stand out of the circle of industry ....................... Although we are not concerned in this case with those categories of employees who particularly come under the departments charged with the responsibility for essential constitutional functions of government, it is appropriate to state that if there are industrial units severable from the essential functions and possess an entity of their own it may be plausible to hold that the employees of those units are workmen and those undertakings are industries. A blanket exclusion of every one of the host of employees engaged by Government in departments falling under general rubrics like Justice, defence, taxation, legislature may not necessarily be thrown out of the umbrella of the Act. We say no more except to observe that closer exploration, not summary rejection, is necessary .................. Thus the nature of actual functions and of the pattern of organised activity is decisive .............. Notwithstanding the previous clauses, sovereign functions strictly understood, (alone) qualify for exemption, not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by Government or statutory bodies ................... Constitutional and competently enacted legislative provisions may well remove from the scope of the Act categories which otherwise may be covered." 10. Notwithstanding the previous clauses, sovereign functions strictly understood, (alone) qualify for exemption, not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by Government or statutory bodies ................... Constitutional and competently enacted legislative provisions may well remove from the scope of the Act categories which otherwise may be covered." 10. Thus, the decision in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board's case (supra) has not only brought the non-regal functions of the State back into the fold of industry but has applied the doctrine of severability to the departments of the State discharging regal functions. 11. It may also be useful to quote the observations made by his Lordship Beg, C.J. in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board's case. His Lordship observed as under: "What is meant by the use of the term "Sovereign", in relation to the activities of the State, is more accurately brought out by using the term "governmental" functions although there are difficulties here also inasmuch as the Government has entered largely now to fields of industry. Therefore, only those services which are governed by separate rules and constitutional provisions, such as Articles 310 and 311 should strictly speaking be excluded from the sphere of industry by necessary implication ........................... If express rules under other enactments govern the relationship between the State as an employer and its servants as employees it may be contended, on the strength of such provisions, that a particular set of employees are outside the scope of the Industrial Disputes Act for that reason. The special excludes the applicability of the general." 12. Rule 2(i) of the Rajasthan Service Rules provides that the rule applies to all persons appointed by the Government of Rajasthan to posts or services under its administrative control or in connection with the affairs of the State of Rajasthan on or after the seventh day of April, 1949. Clause (i) of the second proviso to rule 2 states that Rajasthan Service Rules shall not apply to persons paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the State under budget unit of appropriation Pay of Officers" and 'Pay of Establishment" and who are at the same time Workmen as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, except to the extent provided in case of persons covered by clause (h) in respect of the rules referred to therein. There is also clause (f) in second proviso to rule 2 of Rajasthan Service Rules, which provides that the rules shall not apply to persons paid from contingencies. The expression "Workmen" has been defined in section 2(s) of the Act as meaning any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward. The petitioners, in the present case, were persons, who were employed on clerical work in the State Insurance and Provident Fund Department on daily wages. Persons appointed for clerical work on daily wages were not governed by separate rules and constitutional provisions. They might have been paid from contingencies or from consolidated fund of the State under the head "Pay of Establishment". The State Insurance and Provident Fund Department are not carrying on essential functions of constitutional government. This department was carrying on welfare activities to provide social security to State Government employees. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion, that the petitioners were workmen not governed by the separate rules or constitutional provisions and were employed in industry. Since the department carried on welfare activities, and not essential governmental functions, it was an "industry" in relation to clerical staff. 13. It is clear that artificial breaks were given in the employment of the petitioners. They were retrenched on 30th Sept., 1986. During the period from 30th Sept. 85 to 30th Sept. 86, they had worked for more than 240 days. Section 25(B)(2) of the Act provides that where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause(i) for a period of one year, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer for a period of one year, if the workman during a period of 12 calender months preceding the date with respect to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days. That requirement stands complied with in the instant case. Admittedly, the respondent had not complied with the provisions contained in section 25-F of the Act. The petitioners were not given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and they were not paid wages in lieu of the notice period. There has been, therefore, contravention of section 25-F of the Act. 14. Admittedly, the respondent had not complied with the provisions contained in section 25-F of the Act. The petitioners were not given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and they were not paid wages in lieu of the notice period. There has been, therefore, contravention of section 25-F of the Act. 14. The next claim of the petitioners is to continue them on the post of LDC in regular pay-scale. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed as Lower Division Clerks in the Department of State Insurance and General Provident Fund. They were paid daily wages at Rs. 15/- per day excluding holidays. The principle of "Equal pay for Equal work" which is embodied in Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India, has been held to be a part of the equality clause contained in Article 14 of the Constitution. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions in Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982)1 SCC 618 ; Surendra Singh v. Chief Engineer, CPWD (1986)1 SCC 639 ; Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P. (1986)1SCC 637 ; R.D.Gupta v. Union Governor, Delhi Administration: (1987)SCC 505 ; Bhagwandas v. State of Haryana: (1987) 4 SCC 634 ; Daily Rated Casual labour Employed under P&T Department v. Union of India (1988)1SCC 122 ; Jaipal v. State of Haryana (1988)3 SCC 354 and Dharwar District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka; (1990)2SCC 396 . These decisions have clearly laid down that all persons doing similar work are entitled to be paid similar wages and denial of this benefit amounts to violation of the constitutional right of equality. It has also been held that the duties need not be exactly identical but should be broadly similar for the purpose of entitlement of equal pay for equal work. 15. It may be observed that by order of this Court dated 24th Oct., 86, an interim order was passed, directing the respondents to continue Hemraj Gurjar petitioner in employment on daily wage basis if vacancy existed. The interim order was continued by further orders passed in the writ petition. The same was the position in relation to Yogendra Kumar Gupta petitioner and Ram Dhan Yadav. 16. The interim order was continued by further orders passed in the writ petition. The same was the position in relation to Yogendra Kumar Gupta petitioner and Ram Dhan Yadav. 16. I, therefore, allow all these three writ petitions, set aside the retrenchment order passed in relation to the three petitioners on 30th Sept., 86 and direct their reinstatement by the respondents as LDC with back wages at the daily rate. It is, further directed that the respondents will pay to the petitioners the minimum of the regular pay scale of Lower Division Clerk with effect from the date of their filing the respective writ petitions on 20th and 22nd Oct.,1986. The respondents may consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation in accordance with their seniority amongst daily wage appointees in case any vacancy exists in the department.Petition allowed. *******