JUDGMENT : SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. 1. The petitioner has assailed the award dated 23rd August, 2005 whereby the reference made to the Labour Court by the State Government has been rejected and it has been held that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would not apply to the facts of the case. 2. The petitioner, by way of this petition, has challenged the award stating that he was appointed on 1st August, 1984 on the daily wages basis as a Beldar and he worked for 240 days up to 1st January, 1992 when his services were dispensed with. It is further stated that the plea taken by the respondents that his appointment was under the RLEGP scheme was wrongfully interpreted by the Labour court as if there was any scheme available with the PWD. So far as the petitioner is concerned his appointment was made by the Assistant Engineer PWD and merely on account of the said scheme, the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act cannot be ousted and he is entitled to get benefit under the said Act of 1974. 3. At the outset it self the respondents had submitted their reply and pointed out that appointment of petitioner under the RLEGP scheme was from time to time. There was no appointment issued to him for the period of 240 days and the scheme was closed. The petitioner who was working for since August 1984 to July 1985 cannot get any benefit. The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, would not apply regarding appointments made under the RLEGP Scheme. 4. In support of the submissions, the counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Rajasthan v. Richpal Singh & Anr. reported in [2003 (4) WLC (Raj.) 528] wherein relying upon the earlier Division Bench Judgment of Dewa Ram v. The State of Rajasthan (1990(2) RLW 155). It was held that the appointments made under scheme or famine relief work cannot be said to be of that nature which come within the ambit of Industrial Disputes Act. Such appointments come to an end on completion of the relief work and such daily wager cannot be said to have been working as a workman in an industry. 5. It was held that the appointments made under scheme or famine relief work cannot be said to be of that nature which come within the ambit of Industrial Disputes Act. Such appointments come to an end on completion of the relief work and such daily wager cannot be said to have been working as a workman in an industry. 5. In view thereof, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the Labour Court has rightly rejected the claim. 6. Having reflected over the matter, this court finds merit in the submissions of the respondents. It is apparent that the labour court has given a finding of the fact regarding the appointment of petitioner under a relief scheme by the name of RLEGP scheme which stood closed with effect from January, 1992 and accordingly the services of the petitioner could not have been continued thereafter. The award does not suffer from any infirmity in law. There has not been any error committed in interpreting the evidence produced by both the parties. Taking into consideration the judgment passed by co-ordinate Bench in the case of The State of Rajasthan v. Richpal Singh, wherein the court has quoted the conclusion there under: "Thus, it is held that the provisions of the Act of 1947 would not be applicable to the case of the respondent No. 1 as he was appointed by the petitioners for doing the famine relief works and therefore, the findings of the learned Labour Court (respondent No. 2) that the provisions of the Act of 1947 would be applicable to the case of the respondent No. 1 are liable to be set aside. The Division Bench of this Court in Dewa Ram v. The State of Rajasthan (1990(2) RLW 155) has further observed that appointments for doing the famine relief works are not covered by the provisions of the Act of 1947 and as soon as the famine work/famine operation ended, the services came to an end. Therefore, from this point of view also, the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to the relief sought for." 7. This court finds no merit in the submission of the petitioner. 8. In view of above findings given by the labour court, this writ petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed. 9. Ordered accordingly.