Calcutta High Court Upholds Tribunal’s Ruling: Accountant Classified as ‘Workman’ Under Industrial Disputes Act
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Swarnakshar Prakasani Pvt. Ltd., challenging an industrial tribunal’s decision to classify an accountant as a ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The ruling was delivered by Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul), who upheld the tribunal’s findings and granted interim relief to the employee.
Background of the Case
The case revolved around the termination of Dulal Chatterjee, an accountant who had been working with Swarnakshar Prakasani Pvt. Ltd. since 2002. He was earning ₹18,000 per month at the time of his termination in July 2013. The West Bengal Government referred the matter to an Industrial Tribunal, asking it to determine whether Chatterjee’s dismissal was justified and what relief he was entitled to.
While the tribunal ruled in Chatterjee’s favor, his employer challenged the decision in the High Court, arguing that he was a supervisory employee and thus did not qualify as a ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Arguments Before the Court
In court, Mr. Ranjay De, representing the company, argued that Chatterjee was responsible for financial oversight, tax filings, ESI matters, and banking transactions, which indicated a supervisory role. He cited previous Supreme Court rulings, including Lenin Kumar Ray v. Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd., 2024 and B.G. Sampat v. State of West Bengal, 2001, to assert that managerial or supervisory employees do not fall under the definition of a ‘workman.’
On the other hand, Mr. Susovan Sengupta, appearing for the State, countered that Chatterjee’s role was purely clerical. He emphasized that Chatterjee had no authority to grant leave, initiate disciplinary action, or oversee subordinates. Hence, he argued that the tribunal had rightly classified him as a ‘workman’ and granted interim relief.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) examined three key aspects of the case before ruling in favor of Chatterjee:
- Workman Status: The court ruled that an employee’s designation is not the deciding factor, but rather the nature of their actual job duties. It found that Chatterjee’s work was clerical and did not involve managerial or supervisory responsibilities such as overseeing staff, granting leave, or handling disciplinary actions. The court also noted that the company failed to provide any proof of him exercising such authority.
- Legal Precedents: The court referred to previous rulings, including Lenin Kumar Ray, reinforcing that actual job responsibilities determine workman status. Since Chatterjee’s duties did not include managerial or supervisory work, the court upheld the tribunal’s decision.
- Interim Relief Justification: The court examined whether the ₹15,000 per month interim relief granted by the tribunal was justified. It cited Section 15(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (West Bengal Amendment), which mandates interim relief for workmen during dispute proceedings. Moreover, since there was no evidence that Chatterjee had found another job, the court ruled that the relief was essential for his survival.
Final Verdict
After considering all aspects, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the tribunal’s ruling. The court also directed the tribunal to continue its proceedings and reach a final decision on the dispute.
This judgment reaffirms the principle that job responsibilities, not designations, determine workman status under the Industrial Disputes Act. It also underscores the importance of financial relief for workers during litigation, ensuring their survival while the case is being adjudicated.
