Safiya Malik

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging an industrial tribunal’s decision recognizing an employee’s status as a ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The tribunal had granted interim relief to the employee after finding procedural irregularities in his termination, directing the employer to provide financial compensation during the pendency of the dispute.

The dispute arose from the termination of an employee, Dulal Chatterjee, from Swarnakshar Prakasani Pvt. Ltd., effective July 15, 2013. The employer maintained that Chatterjee held a managerial or supervisory position, rendering him ineligible for relief under the Industrial Disputes Act. The employee, however, contested this classification and argued that he had been engaged in clerical work without supervisory or managerial responsibilities. The dispute was referred by the State Government of West Bengal to the 4th Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata, on October 14, 2014, for adjudication on the following issues:

1. Whether the termination of Service of Sri Dulal Chatterjee w.e.f. 15th July, 2013 by the management of M/s. Swarnakshar Prakasani Pvt. Ltd. justified?

1. To what relief is he entitled?

The company argued that Chatterjee’s role was predominantly administrative, citing his salary of Rs. 17,617 per month and job functions such as handling accounts, updating ledgers, and filing statutory returns. The employer stated that his role extended beyond mere clerical duties. In contrast, Chatterjee contended that his work was routine and did not include decision-making authority or control over other employees. He submitted that his termination lacked procedural fairness and was executed without affording him a proper opportunity to present his case.

The tribunal had previously ruled on a preliminary issue concerning the maintainability of the proceedings, determining that Chatterjee was indeed a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. Following this, the tribunal examined whether Chatterjee was entitled to interim relief under Section 15(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (West Bengal Amendment), which provides for financial assistance to terminated employees while their cases are pending.

The tribunal reviewed the evidence and concluded that Chatterjee did not exercise any supervisory authority over other employees. It held: “There is nothing on record to show that he had any supervisory powers like power to grant leave, to initiate disciplinary proceedings or to make temporary appointments. The company failed to prove that any other employee was working under the supervision of Mr. Dulal Chatterjee.”

The tribunal found that the company had not provided any documentary or oral evidence to support its claim that Chatterjee’s role was managerial or administrative: “Even no such suggestion to this effect was given to Mr. Dulal Chatterjee by Company during his cross-examination. So, Company could not prove that Mr. Dulal Chatterjee was ‘employed mainly’ in managerial or administrative capacity or ‘Supervisory Capacity’.”

The tribunal concluded that Chatterjee fell within the definition of a ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Regarding the interim relief claim, the tribunal observed that Chatterjee’s termination was executed without following proper legal procedures. It recorded: “No domestic enquiry whatsoever was held by the company, no charge sheet was submitted and no-show cause notice was issued. The so-called termination letter was issued only on the basis of some in-house enquiry of which the workman had no knowledge and during which he was never heard.”

The tribunal further observed that the principles of natural justice were not followed and that Chatterjee had not been given an opportunity to defend himself before the termination decision was finalized.

The tribunal examined the application of Section 15(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which mandates financial assistance to a dismissed workman while the dispute is under consideration. The tribunal determined that interim relief was justified and ruled: “Under such circumstances, the workman Dulal Chatterjee is found entitled to receive Rs. 15,000/- per month towards interim relief w.e.f. the date of his termination i.e. 15.07.2013.”

The tribunal directed the company to clear arrears amounting to Rs. 17,10,000, to be paid in ten equal monthly instalments of Rs. 1,71,000 starting from February 28, 2023. The employer was further instructed to continue paying the interim relief amount regularly until the final disposal of the case.

In its judgment, the High Court upheld the tribunal’s findings, affirming that Chatterjee’s work was primarily clerical and did not involve managerial or supervisory responsibilities. The Court ruled: “The petitioner could not prove that the private respondent had authority over any subordinates. The duties as performed by him were purely clerical in nature, with no supervisory authority. It is the nature of work and not the salary or the designation which determines who is a worker.”

The High Court stated that the burden of proving the nature of employment rested with the employer and found that the tribunal’s decision adhered to legal principles. The Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming both the tribunal’s classification of Chatterjee as a workman and the order for interim relief.

The High Court directed the tribunal to proceed with the final adjudication of the matter without further delay. All interim orders were vacated, and the case was referred back to the tribunal for expeditious disposal.

Case Title: Swarnakshar Prakasani Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 281 of 2025
Bench: Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

[Read/Download order]