Repeated short-term appointments cannot defeat retrenchment safeguards, and reinstatement may be replaced with compensation on the facts.

Repeated 89-day appointments with one- or two-day breaks were treated as a colourable device to defeat statutory protection, so the fixed-term exception under Section 2(oo)(bb) did not apply and compliance with Section 25-F remained necessary. On the facts, termination was not sustained as a genuine expiry of a fixed-term contract. However, relief in industrial adjudication was moulded to the circumstances: because the workman had been out of service for years, had not pursued regular appointment when available, and had remained absent for substantial periods, reinstatement with full back wages was replaced by compensation. The workman's challenge succeeded on legality, but relief was confined to monetary compensation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether repeated appointment on 89-day terms with short breaks attracted Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and whether termination without compliance with Section 25-F was justified; (ii) whether reinstatement with full back wages was the proper relief or whether compensation should be substituted.

Issue (i): Whether repeated appointment on 89-day terms with short breaks attracted Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and whether termination without compliance with Section 25-F was justified.

Analysis: The appointments were renewed from time to time on the same short-term basis with nominal breaks of one or two days. On the facts found, the pattern of disengagement and re-engagement was not bona fide and was used to defeat the statutory protection available to the workman. In that situation, the termination could not be treated as a genuine cessation on expiry of a fixed-term contract within Section 2(oo)(bb), and the requirements of Section 25-F were not rendered inapplicable.

Conclusion: Section 2(oo)(bb) was held inapplicable, and the termination was not sustained as a valid fixed-term cessation.

Issue (ii): Whether reinstatement with full back wages was the proper relief or whether compensation should be substituted.

Analysis: Relief in industrial adjudication is not automatic and may be moulded to fit the facts. The workman had been out of service for many years, had not applied for regular appointment when an opportunity arose, and had also remained absent for substantial periods. In the circumstances, the Court considered that reinstatement with back wages would not be the appropriate equitable relief and that compensation would better serve the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The direction for reinstatement with back wages was set aside and compensation of Rs.25,000 was awarded instead.

Final Conclusion: The workman succeeded on the challenge to the legality of termination, but the relief was confined to monetary compensation in place of reinstatement and back wages.

Ratio Decidendi: Repeated short-term engagements with notional breaks, when used to defeat statutory safeguards, do not attract the fixed-term exception; and in industrial disputes, the relief of reinstatement with back wages may be moulded into compensation on the facts of the case.

---