Nature Of Duties Determines 'Workman' Status Under Industrial Disputes Act: Calcutta HC

Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) dismissed a writ petition that challenged an industrial tribunal's holding that an accountant was a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court ruled that despite his accounting role, the workman primarily performed clerical functions without any supervisory or managerial authority. It explained that actual job functions, not designation, determine 'workman' status. Background The West Bengal Government made a reference to an Industrial Tribunal regarding the termination of Dulal Chatterjee by Swarnakshar Prakasani Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal was asked to determine whether Chatterjee's termination in July 2013 was justified and what relief he was entitled to. Chatterjee had been employed as an accountant since 2002. He was earning Rs. 18,000 per month at the time of his termination. However, the company claimed that the dispute was not maintainable. They argued Chatterjee was a supervisory employee and not a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The tribunal ruled in favor of Chatterjee and held that he was a 'workman'. It explained that his duties were clerical in nature, and he did not have supervisory or managerial powers. The tribunal further granted him an interim relief of Rs. 15,000 per month from the date of his termination. Aggrieved, Swarnakshar Prakasani Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court, challenging the tribunal's decision. Arguments Mr. Ranjay De appeared for the company, and argued that Chatterjee's responsibilities included financial oversight, filing returns, and handling ESI and bank matters. He submitted that these tasks only involved a supervisory role, and hence Chatterjee was not eligible for protection under the Industrial Disputes Act. He also cited Lenin Kumar Ray v. Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2987, and B.G. Sampat v. State of West Bengal, 2001 (1) LLN 616, to argue that employees with managerial or supervisory duties cannot be considered workmen under the Act. Mr. Susovan Sengupta, representing the State, argued that Chatterjee's role was purely clerical. Chatterjee had no power to grant leave, initiate disciplinary proceedings, or oversee any subordinates. Thus, he submitted that the tribunal had correctly determined his status as a 'workman'. He also defended the interim relief, by arguing that Chatterjee did not have any alternative employment and needed financial support pending final adjudication. Court's Reasoning Firstly, the court examined whether the tribunal correctly classified Chatterjee as a 'workman.' It noted that the main factor under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not an employee's designation but the nature of his duties. The court observed that Chatterjee's tasks were clerical. They did not involve any supervisory responsibilities such as managing staff, granting leave, or initiating disciplinary action. Further, the court noted that the company too had failed to establish that he exercised any managerial authority. Secondly, the court referred to cases such as Lenin Kumar Ray. It held that an employee's actual functions, rather than their job title, determine their classification under the Industrial Disputes Act. Since Chatterjee's role did not involve any managerial or supervisory duties, the court upheld the tribunal's findings. Thus, it declared that he was a 'workman'. Thirdly, the court considered whether the grant of interim relief was justified. It noted that Section 15(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (West Bengal Amendment) mandates the grant of interim relief to workmen during the pendency of disputes. Further, the court also did not find any evidence that Chatterjee was gainfully employed elsewhere. Noting that the tribunal's order ensured his survival during the litigation, the court declined to interfere with the award of Rs. 15,000 per month. Thus, the court dismissed the writ petition and directed the tribunal to adjudicate the dispute. Decided on: 20-02-2025 Case No.: WPA 281 of 2025 | Swarnakshar Prakasani Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Ranjay De, Mr. Soumitra Datta, Mr. Rananeesh Guha Thakurta, Ms. Senjuti Sengupta, Mr. B. Banerjee, Mr. A.A. Bose Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Susovan Sengupta, Mr. Subir Pal, Mr. Somnath Ganguly, Mr. Debapriya Chatterjee Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Nature Of Duties Determines 'Workman' Status Under Industrial Disputes Act: Calcutta HC

Pranav Kumar

Tags