Cessation upon expiry of a project-specific fixed-term engagement is excluded from retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb).

Suresh Pal challenged a Labour Court award rejecting his industrial-dispute claim.

He alleged that he had worked for the respondent since April 1998, that his wages were reduced, and that his services were illegally terminated on 31 December 2001.

The respondent maintained that he had been engaged as a helper for a fixed term on the “Census of Handicraft Artisans” project, with extensions, and that his engagement ended when the term expired.

The Labour Court held that the respondent was an “industry” but found that Pal’s project-specific, fixed-term engagement had ended on expiry and that the cessation was not retrenchment.

Whether Pal was engaged on a contractual, project-specific basis or was a permanent employee of the respondent.

Whether the end of Pal’s engagement on expiry of its term constituted retrenchment requiring compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 excludes from “retrenchment” the termination of a workman’s service resulting from non-renewal of a contract on its expiry, or termination under a contractual stipulation. Where that exception applies, Section 25-F’s retrenchment requirements do not arise.

The Court relied on Haryana State F.C.C.W. Store Ltd. v. Ram Niwas, (2002) 5 SCC 654, and Escorts Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, (1997) 11 SCC 521, for the principle that cessation of an engagement made for a specific purpose and period may fall within Section 2(oo)(bb).

Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not exercise appellate jurisdiction and should not disturb factual findings absent perversity or jurisdictional error, as stated in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97.

Pal’s application for employment showed his awareness that the helper position was connected to the specified project; the record also showed successive extensions, and it was undisputed that his services were for that project and that the project had ended.

His name appearing in an administrative-staff salary chart and evidence of arrears for an earlier period did not, considered alone, establish permanent employment; those records had to be assessed alongside his application, appointment documentation, and extensions.

On the cumulative evidence, the Court found no basis to reject the Labour Court’s conclusion that the engagement was fixed-term and project-specific. Its expiry therefore fell within Section 2(oo)(bb), so Section 25-F was not attracted.

The factual findings disclosed no perversity or jurisdictional infirmity warranting intervention under Article 227.

Finding no ground for interference under Article 227, it upheld the Labour Court’s award and dismissed the writ petition.

The respondent’s application to place documents on record was disposed of because the documents were already on record.