https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456911 Termination of daily-wage workmen engaged for a specific purpose and limited period did not amount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, because the engagement fell within the contractual exception in Section 2(oo)(bb). The appointments were made to guard stock stored in the open and were to continue only until the stock was disposed of or for a fixed period; once that purpose ended and the period expired, the termination was treated as contractually permitted. As a result, the retrenchment safeguards under Section 25(f) were not attracted, and the workmen were not entitled to reinstatement or consequential relief. en-us Mon, 08 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Aug 2024 10:03:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456911 Termination of daily-wage workmen engaged for a specific purpose and limited period did not amount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, because the engagement fell within the contractual exception in Section 2(oo)(bb). The appointments were made to guard stock stored in the open and were to continue only until the stock was disposed of or for a fixed period; once that purpose ended and the period expired, the termination was treated as contractually permitted. As a result, the retrenchment safeguards under Section 25(f) were not attracted, and the workmen were not entitled to reinstatement or consequential relief. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 08 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456911