Termination of daily wagers as per contract stipulations is discharge simpliciter, not retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb).

The Appellants were appointed as Retainer Crew Conductors by the Respondent (DTC) in 1985 on a daily-wage basis

They underwent training and served for approximately three years before their services were terminated in May 1988 on the grounds of being "surplus" due to a reduction in the Respondent’s bus fleet

While the termination orders used the term "retrenchment" and notice pay was provided, the Appellants raised an industrial dispute alleging illegal termination and violation of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act)

The Labour Court, in its Award dated 20.01.2016, held the termination was a "discharge simpliciter" under Section 2(oo)(bb) and not retrenchment

The Appellants challenged this before a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, who dismissed the Writ Petitions in limine on 17.08.2016

1. Whether the termination of the Appellants' services as daily-rated Retainer Crew Conductors constitutes "retrenchment" under the ID Act or falls within the exception of Section 2(oo)(bb)

2. Whether the Appellants, as daily wagers, were entitled to the protections of Sections 25F and 25G of the ID Act despite the specific stipulations in their letters of appointment

Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which excludes from the definition of "retrenchment" any termination resulting from the expiry of a contract or termination under a specific contractual stipulation

The principle that the status of a regular employee cannot be claimed by daily wagers solely based on PF/ESI deductions or length of service if the appointment was categorically temporary and daily-rated

The Court observed that the Appellants’ appointment letters explicitly stated their engagement was purely temporary, daily-rated, and liable to termination without notice or assigning reason

The Court found that the Appellants were aware there was no assurance of permanent employment at the time of their training

Although the Respondent used the term "retrenchment" in the termination orders and paid compensation, the Court reasoned that such labels do not change the legal character of the cessation of service

Since the service was terminated under specific contractual stipulations due to the Appellants becoming "surplus" staff (following a reduction in the bus fleet), the termination fell squarely within the second limb of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act

Consequently, the mandatory requirements for retrenchment under Section 25F were held inapplicable

The Court dismissed the Appeals and upheld the order of the Single Judge and the Labour Court’s Award