Calcutta High Court: A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court consisting of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) dismissed a challenge to an industrial tribunal's award. The court explained that a guest faculty who was paid honorariums for specific sessions, cannot claim the status of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Background
Hansraj Koley worked with UCO RSETI, an organisation that trains rural unemployed youth in developing self-employment skills. He stated working with them in 2011, and performed administration, field coordination, documentation and event organisation duties. In 2012, his role was formalised through a letter sent to the Employment Exchange at Arambagh, who later sent another letter on 24 March 2012, outlining his specific duties.
Koley claimed that he worked for over 240 days a year under the direct supervision of the director of UCO RSETI, and other bank officials. He also received an honorarium of Rs. 5500. However, in November 2012, his services were terminated verbally. He argued that his termination was illegal, as he was not given any opportunity to be heard before being terminated. Aggrieved, he raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Kolkata.
He argued that the letter dated 24 March 2012 was an appointment letter. However, UCO RSETI argued that it was not an appointment letter and it merely invited him to take up specific training sessions as a “guest faculty”. Finally, a settlement was reached where Koley agreed to apply to any future vacancies and also accepted Rs. 2000 as full and final settlement.
Despite this, he filed another application under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The tribunal dismissed this application through an award passed in a 2024. Aggrieved, he filed a writ petition challenging this award.
Arguments
Koley argued that he was employed in a regular capacity and was performing multiple dities under UCO RSETI's supervision. He argued that the 24 March 2024 letter was indeed an appointment letter and that the termination without having any hearing violated his rights under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He argued that the tribunal erred in considering him as a 'guest faculty' and denying him any protection under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
On the other hand, UCO RSETI argued that Koley was never employed ona regular basis. Instead, they submitted that he was engaged occasionally as a guest faculty for specific sessions and was also paid honorarium per session. They argued that there were no outstanding payments remaining, and that there were receipts acknowledging full payment each time. Further, they also argued that as per the 2014 settlement, Koley had accepted Rs. 2000 as full and final payment and had agreed to apply to any vacancies following proper procedure.
Court's Reasoning
Firstly, the court examined the letter dated 24 March 2012. The court explained that the letter did not appoint Koley as a regular employee; instead, it only requested him to take certain training sessions and promised token honorarium for the same along with conveyance expenses.
Secondly, the court agreed with the tribunal's finding that Koley was engaged as a guest faculty and did not receive 'wages' under the Industrial Disputes Act. The court noted that Section 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines 'wages' as regular remuneration paid for employment under certain expressed or implied terms. The court explained that this does not apply to Koley as he was only given token honorariums for occasional training sessions and was not paid fixed, regular payments for work.
Thirdly, the court explained that to qualify as a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Act, there ought to be a continuous employment relationship between Koley and UCO RSETI. Noting that he was only engaged occasionally, the court held that Koley was not in regular employment and was therefore not covered under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Lastly, the court noted that the 2014 settlement had already recorded the dispute as fully and finally resolved. The court observed that Koley had also agreed to apply to future vacancies as per the official procedure. The court explained that Koley filing a fresh claim before the tribunal despite this, violated his settlement terms.
Thus, the court dismissed the writ petition. The court held that there was no error in the Tribunal's award and refused to reinstate Hansraj Koley.
Decided on: 24.06.2025
Case No.: WPA 10043 of 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Balai Chandra Paul, Ms. Tithi Roy
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. Sanjukta Bhattacharya, Ms. Farnaz Nasim