Judgment

K. RAMASWAMY, J.:- The two writ petitions raise common questions of fact and ,law and accordingly they are disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are daily rated workers working in the respondent-Corporation and they are seeking relief under Art. 32 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus or other directions to regularise their services in the respective units and to pay them equal wages with initial basic pay, D.A. and other admissible allowances at par with regularly appointed employees of the respondent performing the same or similar duties. Admittedly, they have been appointed on daily wages between 1983 and 1986 and they have been working ever since. It is contended by them that despite their continuous service respondent has resorted to unfair labour practice in creating artificial break in service to deprive them of the benefit of continuous service. As they are not being paid equal wages at par with regular employees, this offends their right to equality of pay under Art. 14 and such action is contrary to the provisions of Art. 39.

3. The respondent had raised several disputed questions of fact which needed elaborate investi