( 1 ) THE short question which arises in this batch of petitions brought under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is whether Muster Karkoons engaged on purely ad hoc and temporary basis for supervising scarcity relief works (or projects so called) started by the State Government and administered through the concerned District Panchayats are entitled to contend that their services cannot be terminated except in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) notwithstanding the fact that their orders of appointment clearly stated that their employment will terminate on the winding up of the scarcity relief works. Is it necessary to follow the provisions contained in Chapter V-A or V-B of the Act for terminating the services of the petitioners on the promise that such termination amounts to retrenchment in law ? The orders of appointment issued by the District Development Officer Mehsana in terms provide that the appointments are made on purely ad hoc and temporary basis for the duration of relief works and shall automatically stand terminated on the closure of the relief works. Notwithstanding this condition of appointment the petitioners contend that since they have completed 240 days during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made they must be treated as in continuous service for one year and would therefore be entitled to notice or wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation before termination of their services.

( 2 ) IN the counter filed on behalf of the respondent-Panchayat it is stated that having regard to the serious drought conditions prevailing in the district of Mehsana since 1985 86 the State Government had started relief works to provide relief to drought affected people. The main object of these relief works is to provide succour to the drought affected people and not to construct roads tanks etc. These relief works are undertaken by the Government on humanitarian considerations to ensure that drought stricken people do not die because of starvation or lack of maintenance. The principal object of the State is to provide relief during the period of drought and scarcity conditions prevailed with a view to fulfilling its obligations under Arts. 38 39 and 41 of the Constitution of India. The State as a sovereign power in a democratic set-up is charged with the duty to protect its people during severe drought and scarcity conditions. In response to these obligations the State Government undertook relief works in different Talukas of Mehsana District and entrusted the execution thereof to the District Panchayat. Since these relief works were started in discharge of the sovereign function of the State the respondents contend that such works cannot be termed industry within the meaning of Sec. 2 (j) of the Act. It is therefore contended that the provisions of the Act have no application and it is not obligatory on the part of the respondent-Panchayat to follow the procedure for termination of service on the promise that it amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of Sec. 2 of the Act. Alternatively it is contended that even if it held that the provisions of the Act are attracted the termination of service on the completion of relief works would not amount to retrenchment as the case would be governed by the newly inserted clause (bb) in Sec. 2 (oo) of the Act. Broadly stated the defence is two fold namely (i) that the relief works undertaken by the State Government and executed by the District Panchayat in discharge of the sovereign function of the State cannot therefore come within the meaning of industry defined in Sec. 2 (j) of the Act; and (ii) alternatively even if it is assumed (though not admitted) that the petitioners have completed 240 days as alleged and the provisions of the Act apply the termination of service of the petitioners cannot be termed retrenchment within the m