Junior Accountant and one Lower Division Clerk were sanctioned in the tehsils having more than 50% villages declared as famine-affected areas. Against these vacancies, the petitioner was initially temporarily appointed as Junior Accountant for a fixed term, i.e. till February 29,1988. The period of famine operations was extended time to time but ultimately it came to an end on September, 30,1988, when the famine relief work and the famine operations were closed. The case of the respondents, further, is that in view of Section 3 of the Rajasthan Famine Relief Work Employees (Exemption from Labour Laws) Act, 1964 (Act No. XXI of 1964) the applicability of labour laws to the famine relief works is exempted, therefore, the Act of 1947 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner.
notice, as required Under Section 25F(a) of the Act, 1947 should have been given to the petitioner and secondly, the compensation, as required Under Section 25F(b) of the Act, 1947, as provided under this Section , should have, also, been given. As neither the notice was given nor was the compensation paid, therefore, the termination of the services of the petitioner is illegal and the petitioner is entitled for re-instatement in service with full back wages. It has, further, been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Rajasthan Famine Relief works Employees (Exemption from Labour Laws) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1964') is violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as it discriminates between the similarly situated persons, the same is liable to be struck-down. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is doing the same work which the other like persons are doing and when the work-charge employees are entitled for the benefit of the Act of 1947, why the petitioner and other like persons, who are working in the Famine Relief Work are denied the same benefits
submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was in the famine relief department and was for a fixed period and as soon as the famine work/famine operation ended, his services came to an end. As regards the validity of the Act No. 21 of 1964 is concerned, the Additional Advocate General has submitted that the Act No. 21 of 1964 is not discriminatory and is a valid piece of the legislation and has been enacted with an object to provide an exemption to the employees of the famine relief work in the State from the applicability of the Labour Law because the famine relief work is a temporary work, which has to be under taken by the State Government under special circumstances to give relief to the famine-stricken persons living in the areas which are affected by drought and scarcity conditions, and, therefore, if the exemption is granted to the famine relief work, then it cannot be said to be, in any way, discriminatory.
8. Now, we have to see: whether the Act No. XXI of 1964 is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India? The Rajasthan Famine Relief Work Employees (Exemption from Labour Laws) Act, 1964 was enacted with a view to provide exemption to the employees of the famine relief work in the State from the applicability of the labour laws. Section 2(b) of the Act defines 'famine relief work' as the work already started or which may hereafter to be started by the State Government to provide relief to the persons affected by the drought and scarcity conditions. Clause 2(c) provides the definition of 'labour laws' which means any of the enactment as article force in the State of Rajasthan relating to the one specified in the Schedule