JUDGMENT R. Devdas, J. - The petitioners who were earlier employees of the 4th respondent Karnataka State Agro Corn Products Limited had earlier approached this Court along with the other employees, in W.P.No.638-677/2012, being aggrieved of the resolution dated 21.11.2011 passed by the 4th respondent company resolving to close down the company, by earmarking certain amount for the purpose of granting voluntary retirement benefit to the employees. This Court noticed that the petitioners were on deputation to the 3rd respondent - Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as KSBCL for short), at the request of the 3rd respondent. It was also an admitted fact that the appointment of the petitioners in the 4th respondent company was in accordance with law. Consequently, the resolution dated 21.11.2011, in so far as it related to directing all the employees of the 4th respondent company to accept voluntary retirement, was directed to be treated as applicable only to those of employees who opt for voluntary retirement. The State Government was directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for absorbing the services of the petitioners in either of the companies, as early as possible and not later than three months. 2. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State Government to pass an order implementing the order dated 07.11.2012 in W.P.No.638-677/2012, by absorbing the petitioners in the KSBCL and till then pay the salary in the revised pay scales as recommended by the 6th pay commission, grant annual increments upto the date of superannuation, w.e.f., 01-04-2012 and on that basis determine and pay all terminal benefits and other incidental service benefits along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, taking support from a decision of this Court in W.P.No.12050-53/2013 and connected matters which were disposed of on 26.07.2016, submits that under similar circumstances where employees of the Karnataka State Construction Corporation which was also at the verge of closure and the employees of the said Corporation were working on deputation with Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) were given the benefit of fixation of pay and other benefits as provided under the Rules, on par with the employees of BBMP. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent Company submits that the recommendation of the 6th pay commission has not been made applicable to the company. Moreover, as admitted by the petitioners, the 4th respondent Company was directed to be closed down by a Government Order dated 09.01.2002. Therefore, the question of implementing the recommendation of the 6th pay commission with respect to the employees of the 4th respondent company does not arise. The learned counsel submits that in the order dated 07.11.2012, in W.P.No.638-677 of 2012, there is no positive direction to absorb the services of the petitioners. A direction was issued to the State Government to consider the claim of the petitioners for absorption, within a period of three months. It is submitted that the prayer for implementing the orders dated 07.11.2012 in another writ petition, is not maintainable. 5. Learned Counsel for the third respondent-KSBCL submits that the said Corporation has been established in keeping with a provision of the Karnataka Excise Act. It is submitted that KSBCL, has therefore no Cadre and Recruitment Rules. It is for these reasons that the petitioners were repatriated to the parent company. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate, while drawing the attention of this Court to the statement of objections, submitted that subsequent to filing of these writ petitions, the petitioners have received the terminal benefits at the hands of the 4th respondent. In fact, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, along with additional statement of objections, has filed the details of the terminal benefits settled in favour of the petitioners. As regards the claim of the petitioners for retrospective payment of salary as recommended by the 6th pay commission, it is submitted that neither the 4th respondent nor the 3rd respondent KSBCL have adopted the recommendations of the pay commission. 7. Heard the learned counsels and perused the petition papers. 8. A part of the prayer seeking direction for payment of terminal benefits has been satisfied, inasmuch as, the 4th respondent company has settled the terminal benefits in favour of the petitioners. The other part of the prayer seeking for absorption of the services of the petitioners, it was required to be considered by the State Government within three months from the date of order in W.P.No.638- 677/2012, i.e., 07-11-2012. The other part of the prayer seeking for absorption of the services of the petitioners, it was required to be considered by the State Government within three months from the date of order in W.P.No.638- 677/2012, i.e., 07-11-2012. If the petitioners were aggrieved by non-implementation of the orders passed by this Court, the remedy available was to initiate contempt proceedings. Filing one more writ petition to implement the orders passed by this Court, is uncalled for. The reason for non absorption may be many, including the fact that there is no sanctioned posts in the KSBCL and it has no Cadre and Recruitment Rules. Nevertheless, the petitioners also are to be blamed for being lax in their attitude. The order in W.P.No.638- 677/2012 was passed on 07.11.2012. Immediately after the lapse of three months thereon, the petitioners should have moved contempt proceedings against the State Government. The petitioners have attained the age of superannuation during January, March and October, 2013, respectively. These writ petitions are filed during April, 2014. These petitions are hit by delay and laches. 9. The two companies are dogged by their own problems. The 4th respondent was directed to be close down by a Government Order dated 09.01.2002. The 3rd respondent company has no sanctioned posts, it has no Cadre and Recruitment Rules. Implementing the recommendations of the pay commission by the two State Government undertaking companies is not the same as is applicable to the State Government. When admittedly the recommendations of the 6th pay commission has not been adopted and made applicable to respondents No.3 and 4, this Court cannot grant the prayer made by the petitioners in this regard. 10. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.