Honble SAXENA, J.—This review petition has been directed against the judgment dt. 13.1.92 passed by the Division Bench of this Court consisting of Honble Miss K. Bhatnagar, who has now retired, and Honble Mr. Justice Rajendra Saxena in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 473 of 1991, "State of Raj. vs. Babu Khan", whereby appellants Special Appeal was dismissed and the order dt. 2.2.90 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No 898/89 "Babu Khan vs. State of Raj." was confirmed. (2) Succinctly stated the relevant facts are that respondeat Babu Khan filed a writ petition alleging that he was appointed as L.D.C. temporarily on daily wages in the Rehabilitation Section of the Collectorate, Churu vide order dated 2.11.87 (Annex. 1) till 29.2.1988 and thereafter his services were extended upto 3.10.1988, when his services were brought to an end. Thereafter, he was again appointed from 2.11.88 to 30.11.88 and further a fresh appointment was given to him on 2.12.88 for a term ending on 31.12.88 and that in between this period, he was transferred from the Famine Relief Section Collectorate Churu to the Distt. Rural Development Agency, Churu under the National Rural Employment Programme. He contended that he was a workman within the meaning of Sec. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short, "the Act") and that his retrenchment was effected without complying with the mandatory provisions of Sec. 25 F of the Act, which is ex facie illegal and void. He claimed that he was subjected to unfair labour practice and prayed that on the principle of "equal pay for equal work", he is also entitled to be paid in the regular pay scale of LDC. Petitioners in their counter controverted those facts and pleaded that Babu Khan was appointed as a daily rated LDC temporarily in the Famine Relief Section of the Collectorate and that when the Famine work was discontinued, he submitted a fresh application and accordingly, the Addl. Collector (Develop ment)-cum Project Director, Distt. Rural Development Agency, Churu by his order dated 3.10.88 Annex.R/l appointed him as L.D.C. on daily wages in the National Rural Employment Programme (NREP) till 31.10.88. It was asserted that the State Govt. and the D.R.D.A., Churu are two different entities and as such there was no question of transferring the petitioner from Famine Relief Section of the Collectorate to the DRDA. It was asserted that the State Govt. and the D.R.D.A., Churu are two different entities and as such there was no question of transferring the petitioner from Famine Relief Section of the Collectorate to the DRDA. It was specifically denied that the petitioner was either engaged on substantive vacant post or he was a workman within the meaning of Sec. 2(s) of the Act or his services were retrenched within the meaning of Sec. 2 (00) of the Act or the provisions of Sec. 25F of the Act applied in his case. It was specifically pleaded that Babu Khans services were not covered under the provisions of the Act and that there was no violation of Arts. 14, 15, 23 read with Art. 39 (d) of the Constitution of India. Respondent Babu Khan in his rejoinder reiterated that he was appointed as a L.D.C. in the Collectorate, Churu and was deputed in Legal Section vide order dated 3.12.87 Annex. 4, transferred to Tehsil Office, Churu by order dt. 23.12.87 Annex. 3 and was again deputed in the Collectorate, Churu vide order dt. 31.5.88 Annex. 6. He also submitted a certificate dt. 30.9.88 Annex. 5 issued by the Officer Incharge Relief Section (Addl. Collector, Churu) to the effect that he had worked in the Relief Section of the Collectorate from 2.11.87 to 30.9.88 continuously as a daily wages L.D.C. He asserted that he had submitted an application to the Collector for giving regular appointment on the post of LDC on 25.8.88, that the said application was forwarded to the D.R.D.A. and thereupon he was appointed as daily wages L.D.C. w.e.f. 3.10.88 in the DRDA, Churu against the N.R.E.P. Scheme. (3). The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that it was not necessary to enter into the controversy as to whether the petitioner had been given a fresh appointment on 3.10.88 by the Addl. Collector (Development) or it was in continuation of his earlier employment vide office order Annex. 1 dated 2.11.87 or still further was it only a transfer from one employer to the other on the same terms and conditions, because even before the order dt. 3.10.88 Annex.R/l, the petitioner had already put in 240 days continuous service with the Collector, Rehabilitation, where he had been appointed initially on 2.11.87 and, therefore, his services could not have been terminated without following the procedure laid down under sec.,25F. 3.10.88 Annex.R/l, the petitioner had already put in 240 days continuous service with the Collector, Rehabilitation, where he had been appointed initially on 2.11.87 and, therefore, his services could not have been terminated without following the procedure laid down under sec.,25F. of the Act and as such his termination from service before 3.10.88 was invalid. He accordingly by his order dt. 2.2.90 allowed the writ petition and ordered for his reinstatement with back wages. He further directed that the petitioner be paid minimum salary in the pay scale of LDC from the date of filing the writ petition i.e. 17.3.89. (4) Petitioner filed a Special Appeal. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Single Judge had not taken in to consideration the fact that the subsequent appointment of Babu Khan was for another scheme and it was not a transfer from the place where he was initially appointed on 2.11.87. The Division Bench of this Court concurred with the findings of the learned Single Judge and held that it was a case of contravention of the provisions of Sec 25F of the Act and accordingly by the impugned judgement dt. 13.1.1992 dismissed the Special Appeal. Hence this review petition. (5) Dr. S.S. Bhandawat, learned Addl. Advocate General, has strenuously contended that petitioner has suppressed material facts in his writ petition and misled the Court by wrongly pleading that he was initially appointed in the Rehabilitation Department of the Collectorate, Churu. On the other hand, Babu Khan was initially appointed as daily wages L.D.C. by the Collector (Relief), Churu against the Famine Relief Works and when the relief works came to an end, his services automatically stood terminated. He has contended that as per provisions of the Rajasthan Famine Relief Works Employees (Exemption from Labour Laws) Act, 1964 (in short "the Act of 1964"), the provisions of the Act of 1947 do not apply to Famine Relief Works or the employees thereof. Therefore, there was no question of violation of the provisions of Sec. 25F of the Act and the respondent Babu Khan was not entitled to be reinstated in service. Therefore, there was no question of violation of the provisions of Sec. 25F of the Act and the respondent Babu Khan was not entitled to be reinstated in service. He has further contended that the Collector (Relief), Churu was also not arrayed as a respondent in the writ petition, though he was a necessary party and as per the order of the learned Single Bench, the Col lector (Rehabilitation) was directed to reinstate the respondent Babu Khan in service. According to him, these material facts were not at all considered by the learned Division Bench, which constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record and as such the impugned judgement dt. 13.1.1992 deserves to be reviewed and set aside. (6) On the other hand, Mr. Mridul, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent Babu Khan, has submitted that the petitioners in their reply to the writ petition as well as in the memo of Special Appeal did not plead that in the year 1987, famine was declared in Churu District and post of daily wages LDC was created in respect of famine relief works. Therefore, the petitioners are now estopped from taking this plea that the provisions of the Act did not apply in this case in view of the provisions of the Act of 1964. His another contention is that the petitioner was continuously in service from 2.11.87 till Dec. 1988 under the employment of the State Govt. and that while interpreting the provisions of industrial laws, the benefit of reasonable doubt in law and fact, must go to the weaker section i.e. labour. For this, he has relied on the case of Workmen of M/s Williamson Magor and Co. Ltd vs. M/s Williamson Magor and Co. Ltd. and Another (1). According to him, since the petitioner had been in continuous service for more than 240 days, his services could not have been terminated without complying with the prerequisite conditions incorporated in Sec. 25F of the Act and, therefore, the impugned judgment does not warrant any review. (7). I have given my most anxious and careful consideration to the rival submissions made before me. Respondent Babu Khan vide para 2 of his writ petition has pleaded that he was appointed as LDC in Rehabilitation Section of the Collectorate, Churu vide order dt. (7). I have given my most anxious and careful consideration to the rival submissions made before me. Respondent Babu Khan vide para 2 of his writ petition has pleaded that he was appointed as LDC in Rehabilitation Section of the Collectorate, Churu vide order dt. 2.11.87 Annex.1, but this fact is against the contents of his initial appointment order Annex.1, a perusal whereof unambiguously reveals that infact he was appointed as daily wages LDC temporarily till 29.2.88 by the Collector (Relief), Churu. By office order dt. 3.12.87; the Collector (Relief), Churu deputed respondent Babu Khan, who was working in Relief Section, Collectorate Churu to the Legal Section. In that order, it was specifically mentioned that the posting/deputation of the employees mentioned therein were made kceping,in view the huge quantum of famine relief works. Office order dt. 8.12.87 Annex.2 also specifically speaks that the respondent Babu Khan, who was appointed in the Relief Section, was posted in the Relief Section of Tehsil Churu. Thereafter, the Collector (Relief) by his office order dt. 23.12.87 Annex. 3 relieved respondent Babu Khan in the afternoon of 23.12.87 to join his duties in Tehsil Office, Churu. By another office order dt. 31.5.88 Annex. 6, the Collector (Relief) transferred the respondent Babu Khan in the Relief Section of the Collectorate, Churu. Even in the work experience certificate dt. 30.9.88 Annex. 5 filed and relied upon by the respondent, it has been specifically mentioned that he had worked from 2.11.87 to 30.9.88 continuously as a daily rated LDC in the Relief Section of the Collectorate, Churu. Thus, from the documents filed by the respondent, it stands well established that he was appointed in the Relief Section of the Collectorate Churu for the famine relief works and that he was positively not appointed in the Rehabilitation Section of the Collectorate. Thus, the respondent suppressed this material fact in the writ petition and wrongly pleaded that he was appointed as a daily rated LDC in the Rehabilitation Section of the Collectorate Churu and on account of this, the learned Single Judge as well as the learned Divisional Bench were misled and it was wrongly assumed that the petitioners services continued for more than 240 days even before 3.10.88 in the Rehabilitation Section of the Collectorate. (8). From the documents Annex. (8). From the documents Annex. 1 to 6 submitted by the respondent it stands firmly established that he was appointed in the Relief Section of the Collectorate, which deals with the matters pertaining to famine relief works. The petitioners in their reply to the writ petition vide para 3 have clearly pleaded that the term of appointment of Babu Khan was extended from time to time and that when the famine work was discontinued, the petitioners appointment came to an end and that thereafter he had submitted a fresh application and was appointed as a daily wages LDC in the N.R.E.P. vide order dt. 3.10.88 Annex.R/l by the Addl. Collector (Development)-cum-Project Director, DRDA, Churu. The respondents also pleaded that the respondent was neither a workman within the meaning of Sec. 2(s) of the Act nor the provisions of Sec. 25F of the Act could be pressed into service. Therefore, it is abundantly apparent that respondent Babu Khan did not come with clean hands and suppressed the material fact that he was initially appointed in the Relief Section of the Collectorate. On the other hand, he wrongly/falsely pleaded that he was appointed as a daily rated LDC in the Rehabilitation Section of the Collectorate. (9). Section 2(b) of the Act of 1964 defines "famine relief works" which means the works already started or which may be started, by the State Govt. to provide relief to persons affected by drought and scarcity conditions. As per Sec. 2 (c), "Labour law" means any of the enactments as in force in Rajasthan, relating to labour and specified in the schedule. Sec. 3 of the Act of 1964, lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in any labour law, no such law shall apply nor the same shall be deemed ever to have applied, to the famine relief works or the employees thereof in respect of any matter covered by any such law. In the schedule appended to the Act of 1964 at S.No.3, the Act of 1947 finds mention. In the schedule appended to the Act of 1964 at S.No.3, the Act of 1947 finds mention. Hence in view of the provisions of Sec.3 of the Act of 1964 and the Schedule appended thereto, not an iota of doubt lurks in to my mind to hold that the respondent was appointed as an employee to look after the famine relief works in the Famine Relief Section of Collectorate, Churu and thus, he was not at all entitled to claim benefit of protection of the provisions of the Act of 1947. In such circumstances, it was not at all necessary, for the petitioners to separately plead that in the year 1987 famine was declared in Churu District and that the post of daily wages LDC was declared in respect of famine relief works because from documents Annex.1 to 6, all these facts stood ipso facto established. (10). In Dewa Ram vs. The State of Raj. (2), the petitioner was appointed in famine relief works in Collectorate, Pali. His appointment was for a fixed term and as soon as the famine work/famine operation ended, his services came to an end. It was held that the appointment was made in the famine relief works and not in the Rehabilitation Section of the Collectorate and that the provisions of Sec. 25F of the Act, 1947 were not applicable. It was further held that the provisions of the Act of 1964 were not ultra vires of Arts. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, because the classification was based on valid principles, which are rational and reasonable and on intelligible differential and that there was no discrimination. (11) Therefore, respondent was neither a workman within the meaning of Sec. 2(s) of the Act nor the Relief Section, Collectorate Churu was an industry within the meaning of Sec. 2(j) nor his services were retrenched under Sec. 2 ((X)) nor he was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Sec. 25-F of the Act. These material facts were overlooked by the learned Single Judge as well as by the learned D.B., which constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. (12) Admittedly, the respondent Babu Khan was given a fresh appointment as L.D.C. on daily wages under the NREP by the Addl. Collector (Development) cum Project Director, DRDA, Churu vide order Annex. R/l for the period from 2.12.89 to 31.12.89. (12) Admittedly, the respondent Babu Khan was given a fresh appointment as L.D.C. on daily wages under the NREP by the Addl. Collector (Development) cum Project Director, DRDA, Churu vide order Annex. R/l for the period from 2.12.89 to 31.12.89. Hence, he had not completed 240 days continuous service. The provisions of Sec. 25F of the Act did not apply. Therefore, his termination was not ex facie illegal and void and he was not entitled for reinstatement. (13) Since the provisions of the Act cannot be pressed into service in this case, the question of interpretation of any industrial law or giving benefit of reasonable doubt on law and facts to the respondent Babu Khan does not creep in. Therefore, the case of Workmen of M/s. Williamson Magor and Co. Ltd. (supra) does not render any assistance to the respondent. (14) Mr. Mridul has also placed reliance on Bhikam Dass vs. State of Rajasthan (3) and Hem Kumar vs. State of Raj. (4). In Bhikam Dass case (supra), petitioner was working as a Casual Labour in P.W.D., while in Hem Kumars case (supra), petitioner had joined as J.En. in Panchayat Samiti and was kept in service under various schemes. In the said cases, those petitioners were not employed against the famine relief work. The P.W.D. and the Panchayat Samiti have not been exempted from the labour laws under the Act of 1964. Therefore, these cases have no relevance to decide the controversy in question. (15) The Apex Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union vs. Delhi Administration (JT 1992(1) SC 394) has held that persons employed in N.R.E.P., R.L.E.G.P. Schemes or Jawahar Rojgaar Yojna undertaken by the D.R.D.A. cannot claim the benefit of the principle of equal work equal pay and their regularisation in service. Therefore, on this count also, the impugned judgement suffers from the vice of error apparent on record. (16) In the premise of the above discussion, I allow this review petition, set aside the judgment dt. 13.1.92 passed by the D.B. of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 473 of 1991 and direct that the said Special Appeal be now listed at its original number and immediately placed before the regular D.B. for hearing.