Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 20-10-1997 (Annexure P-3) by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated and for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service. ( 2. ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a daily rated labour. He worked for more than 240 days in that position in the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur. He worked for about two years. There is no appointment letter showing the terms of appointment. ( 3. ) THE petitioners case is that he was appointed before the year 1994 and he was working in Raja Gokul Das Dharamshala from 1-2-1996. The termination is illegal. ( 4. ) THE case of the respondents is that the petitioner was engaged on muster roll without any sanction or permission of the competent authority. There is no work for the daily rated employees in the Municipal Corporation. The establishment expenditure of the Corporation has exceeded the prescribed limit. ( 5. ) LEARNED Counsel for both the sides have been heard. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur as a daily rated employee. The petitioner has submitted a letter dated 9-5-2000 of the State Government in which it is mentioned that the posts sanctioned in Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur are 4308 and the employees working therein are 3391. 917 posts are vacant. The State Government has accorded sanction to fill up 200 posts on contract basis. The Municipal Corporation has been held to be an "industry" and the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 apply to the employees of the Municipal Corporation. Recently the Supreme Court in S. M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka, 2003 (2) MPLJ 529, has made the legal position of the daily rated employees crystal clear. The Municipal Corporation has been held to be an "industry" and the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 apply to the employees of the Municipal Corporation. Recently the Supreme Court in S. M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka, 2003 (2) MPLJ 529, has made the legal position of the daily rated employees crystal clear. It has been held : "the termination of service of a workman engaged in a scheme or project may not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of sub- clause (bb) subject to the following conditions being satisfied : (i) that the workman was employed in a project or scheme of temporary duration; (ii) the employment was on a contract, and not as a daily wager simpliciter, which provided inter alia that the employment shall come to an end on the expiry of the scheme or project; (iii) the employment came to an end simultaneously with the termination of the scheme or project and consistently with the terms of the contract; and (iv) the workman ought to have been apprised or made aware of the abovesaid terms by the employer at the commencement of employment. The engagement of a workman as a daily-wager does not by itself amount to putting the workman on notice that he was being engaged in a scheme or project which was to last only for a particular length of time or up to the occurrence of some event, and therefore, the workman ought to know that his employment was short-lived. The contract of employment consciously entered into by the workman with the employer would result in a notice to the workman on the date of the commencement of the employment itself that his employment was short-lived and as per the terms of the contract the same was liable to termination on the expiry of the contract and the scheme or project coming to an end. The workman may not therefore, complain that by the act of the employer his employment was coming to an abrupt termination. To exclude the termination of a scheme or project employee from the definition of retrenchment it is for the employer to prove the abovesaid ingredients so as to attract the applicability of sub-clause (bb ). In the case at hand, the respondent employer had failed in alleging and proving the ingredients of sub-clause (bb ). To exclude the termination of a scheme or project employee from the definition of retrenchment it is for the employer to prove the abovesaid ingredients so as to attract the applicability of sub-clause (bb ). In the case at hand, the respondent employer had failed in alleging and proving the ingredients of sub-clause (bb ). All that had been proved was that the appellants were engaged as casual workers or daily-wagers in a project. For want of proof attracting applicability of sub-clause (bb), it has to be held that the termination of the services of the appellants amounted to retrenchment". ( 6. ) IN the present case, petitioner has admittedly worked for more than 240 days as daily rated employee. At the time of the employment of the petitioner it does not appear to have been made clear to him by any order in writing that his employment was short-lived as per terms of the contract and the same was liable to termination on the expiry of the contract and the scheme or project coming to an end. It is for the respondents to prove these ingredients so as to attract applicability of sub-clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, termination of the service of the petitioner is in violation of Section 25-F of this Act. The petitioner is entitled to reinstatement. He will, however, not be entitled to back wages. ( 7. ) IN the result, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 20-10-1997 is quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service.