Project-based temporary employment and 240 days of service do not automatically create permanency or prove unfair labour practice.

Repeated temporary engagement for project-specific work does not, by itself, establish unfair labour practice where the employment is fixed-term, co-terminous with the work, and the breaks are not shown to be artificial. The workman bears the burden of proving that temporary appointments were used as a device to deny permanent status, and that burden was not discharged here. Completion of 240 days of service confers only the statutory protection applicable at retrenchment; it does not create an independent right to regularisation or permanency. On the facts, the employment remained bona fide temporary and no legal basis existed to direct regularisation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the employer had indulged in unfair labour practice by repeatedly engaging the workman as a temporary employee with artificial breaks so as to deny him the status and privileges of a permanent employee. (ii) Whether completion of 240 days of service, by itself, entitled the workman to regularisation or permanency in service.

Issue (i): Whether the employer had indulged in unfair labour practice by repeatedly engaging the workman as a temporary employee with artificial breaks so as to deny him the status and privileges of a permanent employee.

Analysis: The governing provision treated as unfair labour practice the employment of badlis, casuals or temporaries for years with the object of depriving them of permanent status. The claim had to be judged on the totality of the facts, and the burden lay on the workman to establish the alleged unfair labour practice. The engagement here was found to be project-specific, for fixed periods linked to particular contracts, with appointment letters expressly making the employment temporary and co-terminous with the work. The breaks were held not to be artificial, and the temporary nature of the engagement was found to be bona fide rather than a device to defeat permanent status.

Conclusion: The allegation of unfair labour practice was rejected and decided against the workman.

Issue (ii): Whether completion of 240 days of service, by itself, entitled the workman to regularisation or permanency in service.

Analysis: The legal consequence of completing 240 days of service under industrial law was confined to the statutory protection applicable at the time of retrenchment, and did not create an independent right to regularisation. The Court held that the concept could not be expanded into a general rule conferring permanent status merely because the workman had served for long periods. The fixed-term nature of the employment and the project-based character of the work meant that completion of 240 days did not alter the legal position.

Conclusion: No right to regularisation or permanent status arose merely from completion of 240 days, and this issue was decided against the workman.

Final Conclusion: The finding that the employment was project-based and temporary was upheld, and no legal basis was found to direct regularisation or to disturb the termination on the facts of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: Repeated temporary engagement for project-specific work, where the employment is fixed-term and the breaks are not shown to be artificial, does not by itself establish unfair labour practice or confer a right to regularisation; completion of 240 days alone does not create permanent status.

---