Mange Ram Sharma & Anr. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 21.08.2026
Pronounced on : 02.09.2026
Uploaded on : 03.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010429412022

+ W.P.(C) 15847/2022

MANGE RAM SHARMA & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajiv Agarwal, Ms. Meghna
De, Ms. L. Gangmei, Mr.
Siddharth Sapra, and Mr.
Tusshay Singh B., Advocates

versus

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Namrata Mukim, Standing
Counsel with Mr. Niharika
Singh and Ms. Sakshi Saxena,
Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition has been preferred assailing the award
dated 16.12.2020 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial
Tribunal-02, Rouse Avenue Courts Complex (hereinafter referred to as
the “Tribunal”), in ID No. 436/2016.
Vide the impugned award, the Tribunal returned a finding that
the discharge of the workmen was covered under the exception carved
out in Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as the “ID Act”) and, therefore, did not amount
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
11:05:20
W.P.(C) 15847/2022 Page 1 of 9


to retrenchment, and further that they failed to fulfil the requirement of
Section 25B(1) of the ID Act as they had not completed 240 days of
service in the preceding 12 months.
2. The present petitioners, along with another workman, had
approached the conciliation machinery and subsequently the Tribunal
raising an industrial dispute, in which it was stated that they were
employed with the management on the post of Beldar from 01.07.2003
(petitioner no. 1) and 01.07.2006 (petitioner no. 2). They were engaged
on a daily-rated/muster roll basis and were paid wages as fixed and
revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It was
further stated that they were given job for a period of 3 months in a
year. Furthermore, every year they were given breaks and their
services were eventually terminated on 16.10.2010, whereafter they
have not been given any job for any period. It was further claimed that
the act of the management amounts to unfair labour practice.
3. A further claim was made seeking regularization of their
services by claiming that their jobs were permanent and regular in
nature and they have discharged their duties diligently for the last 15
years. It was further claimed that other similarly placed workers were
regularized on the directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal. It
was further claimed that at the time of termination of services no
seniority list was displayed nor were the petitioners granted any
opportunity of being heard. It is also submitted that juniors to the
workmen were retained in service.
4. The appropriate Government referred the following Terms of
Reference to the Tribunal for adjudication:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
11:05:20
W.P.(C) 15847/2022 Page 2 of 9


(1) “ Whether services of Sh. Pawan Bhati S/o Sh. Attar Singh and 2
Ors. (Annexure-A) have been terminated illegally and/or
unjustifiably by the management; and if yes, to what relief are
they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect? ”
(2) “ Whether demand of workmen Sh. Pawan Bhati S/o Sh. Attar
Singh and 2 Ors. (Annexure-A) for regularization of their
services on the post of Beldar from the date of their respective
joining or as per policy of the management and difference of
salary on the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work"
alongwith arrears and consequential benefits, is justified, and if
so, what directions are necessary in this respect? ”

5. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that
the Tribunal misdirected itself by proceeding to decide the case in
terms of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. He submits that in the present
case, the workmen had not claimed that they were appointed under any
contract for a specified period of which there was no renewal made. It
was rather the case of the workmen that there was no specified period
for which they were engaged, in fact the engagement continued for
about 15 years. The claim of the workmen has gone unanswered
inasmuch as the management failed to file any written statement or
lead evidence before the Tribunal.
On the strength of the above submissions, it is contended that
the act of the management is in violation of the provisions of Section
25B of the ID Act and Rules 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957.
In support, learned counsel has also placed reliance on Shri
1
Amar Pal & Anr. Vs. MCD , S.M. Nilajkar and Others Vs. Telecom
2
District Manager, Karnataka , and Management of Municipal
Corporation of Delhi Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and

1
W.P.(C) 15983-84/2004, decided on 23.12.2005
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
11:05:20
W.P.(C) 15847/2022 Page 3 of 9


3
Another .
6. Ms. Mukim , learned counsel for the respondent, on the other
hand, contended that it is the conceded case of the workmen that they
have not completed 240 days in service in the preceding 12 months and
thus the Tribunal was correct in dismissing the claim in light of
Section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act. Learned counsel also relied on the
judgment of this Court in North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Bal
4
Kishan & Anr. .
7. The principal question that arises for consideration is whether
the termination of the services of the workmen amounts to
retrenchment and further whether the management had followed the
statutory procedure under Section 25G of the Act.
8. In the backdrop of the factum that the workmen had not
completed 240 days of service in the preceding 12 months, the
Tribunal proceeded to decide the claim by holding that the present case
is not one of retrenchment, in light of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act.
The said provision is reproduced hereunder:-
“ 2 Definitions.—In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in
the subject or context,—
(oo) „retrenchment‟ means the termination by the employer
of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise
than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but
does not include—
…
(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of
the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer
and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being
terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or ”


2
(2003) 4 SCC 27
3
2011 SCC OnLine Del 5759
4
LPA 258/2020, decided on 06.11.2025
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
11:05:20
W.P.(C) 15847/2022 Page 4 of 9


9. For Section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act to be applicable, the
management has to show that the workman was appointed under a
contract for a fixed period and there was no renewal thereof.
10. From the pleadings and evidence that came on record before the
Tribunal, there is no assertion that the workmen were employed for
any specific project which came to an end. The pleadings remain
unanswered as no written statement was filed. No such case is borne
out of the cross-examination of the workmen either.
11. To claim the benefit of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act, the
burden was cast on the management, which it failed to discharge. The
management was required to show that the employment was under a
contract which stipulated that it would come to an end with the expiry
of the particular project or scheme for which the workmen were
engaged. It was further required that the workmen were well aware of
such stipulation at the commencement of the appointment. The
management had all the records relating to the appointment and service
of the workmen, which it failed to bring on record.
12. At this stage, this Court takes note of the decision of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Amarpal ( supra ), where the Court
was in seisin of similar facts. The said case also pertained to workmen
employed with the MCD, who had not completed 240 days of service
in the preceding 12 months. The Coordinate Bench noted that MCD
had not placed any appointment letter or any document on record in
support of its plea that the workmen were appointed for a specific
period. No particular nature of assignment of work which they were
required to do or details thereof were placed on record. The assertion
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
11:05:20
W.P.(C) 15847/2022 Page 5 of 9


of the workmen stood unrebutted. The Court further relied on a
5
decision of the Supreme Court in Samishtha Dubey Vs. City Board ,
where the Apex Court held that the definition of “workman” in
industrial law is not restricted only to regular employees and would
include daily wagers, and that the rule of seniority was also applicable
to such daily wagers.
13. Now, Section 25G of the Act provides for the procedure for
retrenchment, which reads as under:-
“ 25G. Procedure for retrenchment. - Where any workman in an
industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched
and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that
establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the
employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall
ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be
employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the
employer retrenches any other workman. ”

A plain reading of the above would show that the employer is
statutorily required to adhere to the rule of „first come, last go‟, or in
the alternative „last come, first go‟. In S.M. Nilajkar ( supra ), the
Supreme Court considered the case of casual labourers whose services
were terminated and were not re-engaged. While discussing the term
“retrenchment” as well as the exception carved out under Section
2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act, the Court held as under:-
“ 11. It is common knowledge that the Government as a
welfare State floats several schemes and projects generating
employment opportunities, though they are short-lived. The objective
is to meet the need of the moment. The benefit of such schemes and
projects is that for the duration they exist, they provide employment
and livelihood to such persons as would not have been able to
secure the same but for such schemes or projects. If the workmen
employed for fulfilling the need of such passing-phase projects or

5
1999 II AD (SC) 257
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
11:05:20
W.P.(C) 15847/2022 Page 6 of 9


schemes were to become a liability on the employer State by too
liberally interpreting the labour laws in favour of the workmen, then
the same may well act as a disincentive to the State for floating such
schemes and the State may opt to keep away from initiating such
schemes and projects even in times of dire need, because it may feel
that by opening the gates of welfare it would be letting in onerous
obligations entailed upon it by extended application of the labour
laws. Sub-clause (bb) in the definition of retrenchment was
introduced to take care of such like situations by the Industrial
Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1984 with effect from 18-8-1984.
12. “Retrenchment” in its ordinary connotation is discharge
of labour as surplus though the business or work itself is continued.
It is well settled by a catena of decisions that labour laws being
beneficial pieces of legislation are to be interpreted in favour of the
beneficiaries in case of doubt or where it is possible to take two
views of a provision. It is also well settled that Parliament has
employed the expression “the termination by the employer of the
service of a workman for any reason whatsoever” while defining the
term “retrenchment”, which is suggestive of the legislative intent to
assign the term “retrenchment” a meaning wider than what it is
understood to have in common parlance. There are four exceptions
carved out of the artificially extended meaning of the term
“retrenchment” and, therefore, termination of service of a workman
so long as it is attributable to the act of the employer would fall
within the meaning of “retrenchment” dehors the reason for
termination. To be excepted from within the meaning of
“retrenchment” the termination of service must fall within one of the
four excepted categories. A termination of service which does not
fall within categories (a), (b), (bb) and (c) would fall within the
meaning of “retrenchment”.
13. The termination of service of a workman engaged in a
scheme or project may not amount to retrenchment within the
meaning of sub-clause (bb) subject to the following conditions being
satisfied:

(i) that the workman was employed in a project or
scheme of temporary duration;
(ii) the employment was on a contract, and not as a
daily-wager simpliciter, which provided inter alia that the
employment shall come to an end on the expiry of the scheme
or project;
(iii) the employment came to an end simultaneously
with the termination of the scheme or project and
consistently with the terms of the contract; and
(iv) the workman ought to have been apprised or
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
11:05:20
W.P.(C) 15847/2022 Page 7 of 9


made aware of the abovesaid terms by the employer at the
commencement of employment.
14. The engagement of a workman as a daily-wager does not
by itself amount to putting the workman on notice that he was being
engaged in a scheme or project which was to last only for a
particular length of time or up to the occurrence of some event, and
therefore, the workman ought to know that his employment was
short-lived. The contract of employment consciously entered into by
the workman with the employer would result in a notice to the
workman on the date of the commencement of the employment itself
that his employment was short-lived and as per the terms of the
contract the same was liable to termination on the expiry of the
contract and the scheme or project coming to an end. The workman
may not therefore complain that by the act of the employer his
employment was coming to an abrupt termination. To exclude the
termination of a scheme or project employee from the definition of
retrenchment it is for the employer to prove the abovesaid
ingredients so as to attract the applicability of sub-clause (bb)
aforesaid. In the case at hand, the respondent employer has failed in
alleging and proving the ingredients of sub-clause (bb), as stated
hereinabove. All that has been proved is that the appellants were
engaged as casual workers or daily-wagers in a project. For want of
proof attracting the applicability of sub-clause (bb), it has to be held
that the termination of the services of the appellants amounted to
retrenchment. ”


14. Similarly, another Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi ( supra ), following the
decision of the Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State
6
Warehousing Corporation , upheld the relief of reinstatement in a
similar fact situation where Section 25G was not complied with,
relying on the following extract from Harjinder Singh ( supra ):-
“ It is settled law that for attracting the applicability of Section 25-
G of the Act, the workman is not required to prove that he had
worked for a period of 240 days during twelve calendar months
preceding the termination of his service and it is sufficient for him to
plead and prove that while effecting retrenchment, the employer
violated the rule of `last come first go' without any tangible reason. ”

6
(2010) 3 SCC 192
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
11:05:20
W.P.(C) 15847/2022 Page 8 of 9



15. The respondent‟s reliance on the decision in Bal Kishan ( supra )
is misplaced. Therein, the Court was seized of a case where the
workman was claiming to be a permanent employee, and the Court had
to decide whether he was entitled to benefits under Section 25F of the
ID Act, and whether his termination was in accordance with the
provisions of the ID Act. The workman in the said case also had an
FIR registered against him and was in judicial custody. The said
decision has also been assailed before the Supreme Court and is
pending consideration.
16. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the management had clearly failed to bring its
case within the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act. The
impugned award, to that extent, is set aside. It is held that the
termination of the services of the workmen amounts to retrenchment.
17. Accordingly, the management is directed to reinstate the
workmen in service with consequential benefits. Insofar as the second
Reference is concerned, the same was not gone into by the Tribunal
and accordingly, to that limited extent, the matter is remanded back to
the Tribunal to decide the second Reference, for which purpose the
parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 18.09.2026.
18. The present writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.


(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 02, 2026
rw/nb
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:03.09.2026
11:05:20
W.P.(C) 15847/2022 Page 9 of 9