JUDGMENT

G. N. RAY, J.:—Civil Appeal No. 833 of 1986 and Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.6597-6607 of 1986 and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12528 of 1986 have been heard analogously as the common question of law and fact arise in these matters and all the above matters are disposed of by this common judgment. It appears that various persons joined service of the Government of Rajasthan in the Department of State Insurance and Provident Fund as Lower Division Clerks at the daily wage of Rs. 15 /-. Such appointment at the daily wage of Rs. 15/- was made pursuant to the approval given by the Central Administrative Department of Government of Rajasthan by Letter No. 13/ 10/ General/ Admn./ 3/84 dated 5-9-84. The persons getting such employment continued to work as Lower Division Clerk with breaks at times. But after some time their service were terminated. For example in the case of Surendra Kumar Gyani, appointment was made on 8-10-1984 and the impugned termination was effected on 30-9-1985 (afternoon) with break in service on 15-6-1985 and reappointment on 22-6-1985.

2. Civil Writ Petition No. 1720 of 1985 (Suresh Kumar Gyani v. State of Rajasthan) was taken up for hearing before Single Bench of the Rajasthan High Court along with a number of other Writ Petitions referred to in Schedule A to the judgment. It was contended at the hearing of the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner in the writ petitions that the Department of State Insurance and Provident Fund, Government of Rajasthan was an "industry" under S. 2(j) of the Act and the writ petitioners were workmen under S. 2(s) of the Act. The termination of the service of the writ petitioners constitute retrenchment under S. 2(oo) of the Act and the said order of retrenchment having been passed in contravention of the mandatory provisions of Cls. (a) and (b) of S. 25F of the Act inasmuch as writ petitioners were neither given one months notice nor they had been paid the salary for a month in lieu thereof as required in Cl. (a) of S. 25F and they are also not paid retrenchment compensation as required under Cl. (b) of S. 25F of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned orders of termination passed against the writ petitioners were void and of no consequence and the writ petitioners should be treated as in service. The writ petitioners also contended that the impugned orders of termination had been passed in contravention of the provisions of S. 25G of the Act inasmuch as persons who had been recruited subsequent to the petitioners and became juniors to the petitioners in service had been retained while the services of the petitioners had been terminated. It was further contended that there was no need for retrenchment and even after the said illegal retrenchment other persons were employed on daily wage basis as Lower Division Clerks. Such writ petitions were contested by the respondents, namely, the State of Rajasthan and the Director of the State Insurance and the Provident Fund Department, Rajasthan. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that since the writ petitioners were employed in the discharge of the regal functions of the State in the department of State Insurance and the Provident Fund, Government of Rajasthan, the provisions of S. 25F of the Act were not applicable to such employees. Hence, the question of non-compliance with the requirement of retrenchment compensation and notice under S. 25F of the Act. did not arise. It was also contended that the appointments made to the writ petitioners were only a stop-gap-arrangement and was a conditional and tenure appointment and in terms of the conditions of appointment, the service of the writ petitioners was liable to be terminated without any notice. It was further contended on behalf of the respondents in the writ proceedings that since suitable persons duly recruited according to the rule by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission were not readily available and there was a temporary need to get the service