A classification between persons employed on contract for fixed periods and persons not so employed, for the purpose of exemption from the provisions of Section 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, is valid and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it has a reasonable nexus to the object of the Act, which is to protect the tenure of employees.

ORDER:- The petitioner herein was appointed as Works Manager of the second respondent's factory near the city of Madras from 1-6-1962 on a monthly salary of Rs. 950 plus certain commission. He was originally appointed for a fixed period of three years under a contract of service dated 16-6-1962. The said contract was renewed for a further period of three years with effect from 1-6-1965 under the contract dated 12-7-1965 and the petitioner's salary' was increased to Rs. 1100 per month plus certain commission. By a letter dated 22-2-1963, the petitioner's services were terminated with effect from 1-3-1968, by the second respondent, on payment of three months' salary in lieu of notice. Thereafter, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal under Section 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, to the third respondent herein. Before the third respondent, the second respondent raised an objection that Section 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, had no application to the petitioner herein, since the petitioner was employed on contract for a fixed period. This was based upon an order of the Government of Madras in G. O. Ms. No. 1410 Development Department dated 20-3-1948, made under Section 6 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act 1947 (Madras Act 36 of 1947). The third respondent without deciding the question whether the appeal filed by the petitioner herein was in time or not or without deciding the appeal on merits, dismissed the appeal solely on the basis of the said Government order, holding that Section 41 of the Act was not applicable to the petitioner herein. It is to quash this order of the third respondent herein, the present writ petition has been filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The sole and the single argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner herein is that the said G. O. of 1948 is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India, since it discriminates the petitioner herein as against the other employees, solely on the basis that the, petitioner's services are governed by a contract for a fixed period. For the purpose of appreciating this contention, it is necessary to refer to one or two provisions of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act 1947, (Madras Act 36 of 1947). This Act was brought into force on 1-4-1948, by G. O. Ms. 1323, Development, dated 17-3-1948. S. 4(1) (a) of that Act provides that nothing contained in the Act shall apply to persons employed in any establishment in a position of management and the other sub-clauses refer to other categories of persons to whom the provisions contained in the Act do not apply. Section 5 states that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 4, the State Government may, by notification, apply all or any of the provisions of this Act to any class of persons or establishments mentioned in that section, other than those mentioned in Cls. (c) and (f) of sub-section (1) and modify or cancel any such notification. Section 6 provides :-

"The State Government may, by notification, exempt either permanently or for any specified period, any establishment or class of establishments, or person or class of persons, from all or any of the provisions of this Act, subject to such conditions as the State Government deem fit."

Section 41 of the Act under which the petitioner purported to prefer the appeal is in the following terms :

"Section 41 (1) : No employer shall dispense with the services of a person employed continuously for a period of not less than six months, except for a reasonable cause and without giving such person at least one month's notice or wages in lieu of such notice, provided, however, that such notice shall not be necessary where the services of such person are dispensed with on a charge of misconduct supported by satisfactory evidence recorded at an inquiry-held for the purpose."

3. It may be mentioned that by G. O. Ms. 4074 Industries, Labour and Housing (Labour) dated 5-10-1966, in the exercise o