Temporary vs.

Permanent Workmen

According to the definition under the S.O 1 of

the W.P. Industrial and Commercial Employment
(Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, a workman
will be temporary if he is appointed against a
specific short-term project with a completion
date, the duration of which is likely to be
completed in about nine months.

This is the most important and critical factor

sufficient to determine whether workmen are
temporary or permanent employees.
 But the underlying point is that the nature of
work is the primary consideration while the
duration of employment is the secondary
consideration, though both consideration are
interlinked.

It means a workman may not necessarily

become a permanent employee even well after
the completion of nine months at job if nature
of the job is temporary from all aspects.
 On the other hand if the work is of permanent
nature, workmen after completion of
probationary period of three months will
become permanent very much earlier than
nine months.

It means that it does not follow that as soon as

nine months are completed, the temporary
workman becomes a permanent workman.
 The duration of nine months is not a hard
and fast rule. Rather, the courts have
interpreted this limit in a flexible manner.

The courts have generally held that specific

short-term work/project could exceed few
weeks or even few months due to unexpected
delays and obstacles, provided that it has never
been an open-ended work.
Defeating the intent of law is not condoned
A cost-cutting practice has been evolved whereby an
employer generally a contractor would hire an
employee as a probationary or temporary worker and
then terminate his services verbally or in writing just
before the expiry of the probationary period (90 days)
or temporary period (9 months).

After a day or two, he would be hired again with a fresh

appointment letter stating the exact date of termination
from employment which would be just few days short
of probationary or temporary period. The letter of
appointment provide legal cover to employers.
 This practice, though legal if done once or twice
without any mala fide intention, when becomes a
routine and systematically goes for longer period, it
would amount to bypassing the law through technical
measures.
In these cases obviously the intention of the employer is
to keep the employee on a temporary job forever thus
to avoid making him a permanent workman a status
which entitles him number of other benefits.
Such cost-cutting practices have been frowned upon
and considered exploitative and not condoned by the
Courts.