https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157831 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. en-us Tue, 02 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Jun 2014 13:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157831 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157831