Introduction:

The Calcutta High Court recently upheld an industrial tribunal’s ruling that an accountant, Dulal Chatterjee, was a ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, dismissing a writ petition filed by Swarnakshar Prakasani Pvt. Ltd. The case arose when Chatterjee was terminated from employment in July 2013, leading to a legal dispute over whether his role was clerical or supervisory. The Industrial Tribunal ruled in his favor, granting interim relief of Rs. 15,000 per month. The company challenged this before the High Court, arguing that Chatterjee had managerial responsibilities, but the Court ruled that the true nature of his duties determined his classification.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Swarnakshar Prakasani Pvt. Ltd., represented by Mr. Ranjay De and his legal team, contended that Chatterjee’s responsibilities extended beyond clerical work and included financial oversight, tax filings, and handling ESI and banking matters—functions indicative of a supervisory role. They cited legal precedents, including Lenin Kumar Ray v. Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd. and B.G. Sampat v. State of West Bengal, to argue that employees with managerial duties fall outside the scope of ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Conversely, Chatterjee, represented by Mr. Susovan Sengupta and his team, argued that his role was strictly clerical, lacking authority over other employees, disciplinary powers, or decision-making capacity. The State’s counsel further justified the tribunal’s grant of interim relief, highlighting Chatterjee’s unemployment status and financial dependency.

Judgement:

The Calcutta High Court, led by Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul), analyzed the tribunal’s decision and emphasized that an employee’s designation does not determine their legal status—their actual job duties do. Since Chatterjee did not exercise managerial or supervisory powers, the court upheld the tribunal’s classification of him as a ‘workman.’ The court also examined the award of interim relief, finding it legally justified under Section 15(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (West Bengal Amendment), ensuring financial sustenance for workers during pending disputes. Consequently, the court dismissed the company’s writ petition, affirming the tribunal’s order and directing the adjudication of Chatterjee’s termination dispute.