Ad Hoc Employee Completes 240 Days but Fails Regular Selection; Delhi High Court Says Termination for Regular Appointee Is Not Retrenchment Under Section 25F
Ad Hoc Employee Completes 240 Days but Fails Regular Selection; Delhi High Court Says Termination for Regular Appointee Is Not Retrenchment Under Section 25F
Facts
Poonam Devi was initially appointed by Kirori Mal College as a Junior Assistant on a purely temporary and ad hoc basis on 19 September 1989.
Her employment subsequently changed through different temporary appointments:
- Junior Assistant: 19 September 1989 to 18 December 1989;
- Lower Division Clerk: from 26 December 1989;
- Junior Laboratory Attendant: from March 1990; and
- subsequently Junior Laboratory Attendant on a temporary ad hoc basis “till further orders.”
She continued until her services were terminated with effect from 1 June 1992.
The termination occurred after the College conducted a regular selection process and appointed a regularly selected employee to the post.
Importantly, Poonam Devi herself participated in the regular selection process and appeared for the interview but was unsuccessful.
She raised an industrial dispute.
The Labour Court held that her termination violated Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and directed:
reinstatement + full back wages + continuity of service.
Kirori Mal College challenged that Award before the Delhi High Court.
Issues
The central question was:
Does termination of an ad hoc employee, who has completed more than 240 days but is discontinued after a regularly selected candidate is appointed, amount to “retrenchment” requiring compliance with Section 25F?
The Court also considered whether the termination fell within the statutory exception contained in Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Petitioner’s Arguments — Kirori Mal College
The College argued that Poonam Devi was never regularly appointed.
Her successive appointments were temporary and ad hoc, and at least one appointment letter expressly provided that her employment would continue for three months or until the post was filled through regular recruitment, whichever occurred earlier.
The College subsequently conducted regular recruitment. Poonam Devi participated but was not selected, and her temporary services were discontinued when a regular employee was appointed.
Therefore, according to the College, the termination fell within Section 2(oo)(bb) and did not constitute “retrenchment” at all.
If there was no retrenchment, Section 25F could not apply merely because she had completed 240 days of service.
Respondent Workman’s Arguments
Poonam Devi argued that she had continuously worked for the College from September 1989 until May 1992 and had indisputably completed more than 240 days of service.
According to her, merely describing an appointment as “temporary” or “ad hoc” could not deprive a workman of the statutory protection under Section 25F.
She contended that Section 2(oo)(bb) applies only where the employee is appointed:
- for a specific period; or
- for specific work,
and the employment terminates because that period expires or the specified work comes to an end.
She further argued that persons continued performing the same work after her termination and that her last two appointment letters did not expressly provide that her employment would terminate upon appointment of a regular employee.
Analysis of the Law
First Ask Whether Termination Is “Retrenchment” — Then Apply Section 25F
This is the central legal proposition of the judgment.
The Labour Court had substantially proceeded on the footing that:
240 days completed → Section 25F attracted.
The High Court held that this approach was legally incorrect.
The proper sequence is:
Step 1: Determine whether termination amounts to “retrenchment” under Section 2(oo).
Step 2: Determine whether it falls within an exception, including Section 2(oo)(bb).
Step 3: Only if it constitutes retrenchment does the question of compliance with Section 25F arise.
Therefore, completion of 240 days does not by itself answer whether Section 25F applies.
What Section 2(oo)(bb) Protects
Section 2(oo)(bb) excludes from “retrenchment” termination resulting from:
- non-renewal of a contract upon its expiry; or
- termination pursuant to a stipulation contained in the contract of employment.
The High Court explained that where a workman is employed for a specific period or specific purpose, and employment comes to an end consistently with those contractual terms, the termination may fall outside retrenchment.
The Court relied upon S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager, (2003) 4 SCC 27, which identifies conditions relevant to temporary/project employment falling within Section 2(oo)(bb).
Employee Knew Appointment Was Temporary
The Court closely examined Poonam Devi’s successive appointment letters.
One appointment dated 26 December 1989 expressly provided that her engagement would continue:
for three months or until the post was filled on a regular basis, whichever was earlier.
Her subsequent appointments also continued to describe the employment as purely temporary and ad hoc.
Reading the appointment history cumulatively, the Court found that Poonam Devi was aware from the beginning that:
- she was not regularly appointed;
- regular recruitment was pending; and
- she had no right to continue once a regular appointment was made.
Her services were ultimately terminated precisely when a regularly selected employee was appointed.
Failing Regular Selection Was Material
An important factual circumstance was that Poonam Devi was not excluded from the opportunity to obtain the post permanently.
She actually participated in the regular recruitment process.
She was simply unsuccessful.
The Court held that an employee who was repeatedly engaged temporarily pending regular recruitment and who participated in that recruitment process was clearly aware that the post would ultimately be occupied by a regularly selected candidate.
Accordingly, termination upon appointment of the successful regular candidate fell within Section 2(oo)(bb).
“Till Further Orders” Did Not Change the Character of Appointment
Poonam Devi relied upon her last appointment letter dated 22 October 1990, which stated that she was appointed temporarily and ad hoc “till further orders.”
The High Court refused to examine that phrase in isolation.
Instead, it considered the entire course of employment.
The earlier appointments were for defined temporary periods; successive extensions were granted while regular recruitment remained pending; she participated in the eventual recruitment; and her services ended only after a regular candidate was appointed.
Therefore, the expression “till further orders” did not transform the appointment into one carrying an indefinite or permanent right to continue.
240 Days Does Not Automatically Attract Section 25F
This is the strongest Raw Law takeaway.
The High Court expressly held that the Labour Court’s conclusion that completion of 240 days by itself attracted Section 25F was unsustainable.
The nature of employment and manner of termination must first be examined.
Here:
Temporary/ad hoc appointment + pending regular recruitment + employee aware of temporary character + employee participates in regular selection + employee fails selection + regular candidate appointed = Section 2(oo)(bb) applies.
Once Section 2(oo)(bb) applies, termination is not retrenchment, and therefore Section 25F is not attracted.
Retention of Other Employees Did Not Help
The employee also argued that juniors or other persons continued performing the same work, demonstrating that the work itself had not ceased.
The Court rejected this argument.
The College had advertised the post and appointed regular employees in accordance with the applicable service rules.
Poonam Devi had participated in that process but was unsuccessful.
The fact that other candidates were selected and continued doing the work did not prevent Section 2(oo)(bb) from applying.
Precedent Analysis
Ramjas College v. Presiding Officer & Ors.
This was the principal precedent applied by the High Court.
There too, the workman was engaged on an ad hoc basis and the appointment was extended while regular recruitment was underway.
The Court had held that termination upon appointment of a regularly selected candidate fell within Section 2(oo)(bb) and was not retrenchment.
Crucially, the precedent rejected the proposition that merely completing 240 days automatically attracts Sections 25F and 25H.
The High Court held that the reasoning in Ramjas College “squarely applies” to Poonam Devi’s case.
S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager — (2003) 4 SCC 27
The Supreme Court explained when termination of a worker employed for a temporary project or specified duration may fall within Section 2(oo)(bb).
Relevant considerations include whether the temporary nature and termination condition formed part of the employment arrangement and whether the employee was made aware of those conditions at commencement.
Batala Cooperative Sugar Mill v. Swaran Singh
Cited through Ramjas College for the proposition that where a person is appointed for specific work and a specific period, termination after completion of that arrangement may attract Section 2(oo)(bb) rather than constitute retrenchment.
Punjab State Electricity Board v. Darshan Singh
The employee there was engaged temporarily with a clear understanding that his services would end when a regular employee joined. Despite extensions, the termination following the regular appointment was treated as falling under Section 2(oo)(bb).
International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers Union — (2009) 13 SCC 374
The Court relied upon this authority regarding the limited scope of Article 226/227 review of Labour Court awards.
Ordinarily, factual findings are not re-appreciated merely because another view is possible. Interference is nevertheless permissible where findings are based on no evidence, irrelevant material, patent illegality or jurisdictional error.
Court’s Reasoning
The Labour Court committed the fundamental error of treating completion of 240 days as sufficient by itself to trigger Section 25F.
It failed first to determine the character of the termination.
On examining the successive appointment letters and surrounding circumstances, the High Court found that Poonam Devi’s engagement was consistently temporary and ad hoc pending regular recruitment.
Her own participation in the regular selection process reinforced her knowledge that the arrangement was temporary.
Since her services ended only after a regular candidate was appointed, the termination fell squarely within Section 2(oo)(bb).
Consequently:
There was no “retrenchment.”
And if there was no retrenchment:
Section 25F did not apply.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed Kirori Mal College’s writ petition.
It held that Poonam Devi’s termination was covered by Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act and did not constitute retrenchment.
Accordingly, the Labour Court’s Award dated 31 May 2002 directing reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service was set aside.
Key Takeaway
Completion of 240 days does not automatically entitle every temporary or ad hoc employee to Section 25F protection. The Court must first determine whether the termination amounts to “retrenchment.” Where an employee was engaged temporarily pending regular recruitment, knew the nature of the appointment, participated unsuccessfully in the regular selection process and was discontinued when a regularly selected candidate joined, the termination may fall under Section 2(oo)(bb), in which case Section 25F does not apply.
Case Details
Case: Management of Kirori Mal College v. Poonam Devi & Anr.
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case No.: W.P.(C) 8345/2002
CNR: DLHC010271562002
Judge: Justice Amit Mahajan
Reserved: 2 September 2026
Delivered: 16 September 2026
Result: Petition allowed; Labour Court Award granting reinstatement, full back wages and continuity of service set aside.
