Daily-wage termination is retrenchment absent proof of a fixed-term contract under Section 2(oo)(bb).

The petitioners were engaged by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as Beldars on a daily-rated/muster-roll basis from 1 July 2003 and 1 July 2006, respectively. They claimed that they were given work for approximately three months each year, subjected to annual breaks, and ultimately denied employment after 16 October 2010. They alleged illegal termination, unfair labour practice, violation of seniority principles, and retention of juniors in service.

They also sought regularisation and consequential monetary benefits. The Industrial Tribunal held that the termination fell within the exception under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the petitioners had not completed 240 days of service in the preceding twelve months. The petitioners challenged that award before the High Court.

Whether the termination of the petitioners’ services was excluded from the definition of “retrenchment” under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, despite the absence of evidence of a fixed-term or project-linked contract

Whether the management was required to comply with the rule of “last come, first go” under Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, notwithstanding that the petitioners had not completed 240 days of service in the preceding twelve months

Whether the petitioners were entitled to reinstatement and whether their claim for regularisation required reconsideration by the Tribunal

The Court applied Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, under which termination by the employer for any reason ordinarily constitutes retrenchment, subject to statutory exceptions, including Section 2(oo)(bb), concerning non-renewal or termination of a fixed-term contract in accordance with an express contractual stipulation.

The employer bears the burden of proving the ingredients of Section 2(oo)(bb), including the existence of a fixed-term or project-linked contract, expiry or termination in accordance with its terms, and prior notice to the workman of the limited nature of the employment.

Under Section 25G, retrenchment ordinarily follows the “last come, first go” principle, and proof of 240 days’ service is not necessary to invoke that provision.

The Court relied on S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 27, which held that daily-wage employment by itself does not establish fixed-term project employment and that the employer must prove the conditions of Section 2(oo)(bb); Shri Amar Pal & Anr. v. MCD, W.P.(C) 15983-84/2004, decided on 23 December 2005; Management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5759; and Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192, which affirmed that Section 25G does not require proof of 240 days’ service.

The Court found that the management had neither filed a written statement nor produced appointment letters, employment contracts, project details, or other records demonstrating that the petitioners had been appointed for a fixed period or for a temporary project whose expiry brought their employment to an end.

The petitioners’ assertion that they had worked over several years remained unrebutted. Their status as daily-rated workers did not, without more, attract Section 2(oo)(bb), since the employer had to prove that they were informed at the commencement of employment that their services were limited to a specified period or project.

Consequently, the termination constituted retrenchment. The Court further held that the Tribunal had incorrectly treated the absence of 240 days’ service as determinative, because Section 25G independently required adherence to the “last come, first go” rule and did not depend on the qualifying period under Section 25B.

The respondent’s reliance on North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Bal Kishan was distinguished as arising from materially different facts concerning permanent employment and Section 25F.

Since the Tribunal had not adjudicated the separate regularisation reference, that issue was remanded.

The Municipal Corporation was directed to reinstate the petitioners with consequential benefits.

The claim concerning regularisation and related monetary benefits was remanded to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, with the parties directed to appear on 18 September 2026.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.