The Court has reaffirmed that the determination of “workman” status under Section 15(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, at the stage of granting interim relief by the Tribunal, is a provisional decision based on a strong prima facie case and does not amount to final adjudication of status; however, the order granting interim relief itself is final and binding for its duration. The judgment modifies the effective date of interim relief to the date of reference and stands as binding precedent within West Bengal for all subordinate courts and tribunals dealing with industrial disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FMA/564/2025 of SWARNAKSHAR PRAKASANI PVT LTD Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0137932025 |
| Date of Registration | 24-03-2025 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAY |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR (Concurring) |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench: HON’BLE JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR, HON’BLE JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAY |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts and tribunals within West Bengal |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Full Bench ruling in B.G. Sampat v. State of West Bengal (2001), clarifies effective date of interim relief over Single Bench and Tribunal order. |
| Type of Law | Labour Law / Industrial Disputes |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The determination of “workman” status at the interim relief stage under Section 15(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is prima facie and not final; it is meant only for the purpose of adjudicating eligibility for interim relief and does not preclude a full trial for final determination. The order granting interim relief, however, is final and binding for its duration and cannot be modified till conclusion unless superseded by further orders. The effective date for interim relief is the date of reference, not the date of termination. Interim relief is to be based on a strong prima facie case on available materials, and not on full-scale adjudication of the workman’s status or merits of the main dispute. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
Interim relief must be grounded in a strong prima facie case, and tribunal’s findings are only provisional at this stage. The order of interim relief, once granted, assumes a final and binding character for its term. Effective date of interim relief is the date of reference, per Full Bench ruling in B.G. Sampat. The distinction between preliminary findings and final adjudication is emphasized. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant employer challenged an order of interim relief granted by the Industrial Tribunal in favour of respondent No.3, whose termination was under industrial dispute reference. The core dispute was whether the respondent was a “workman” and thus entitled to interim relief; the Tribunal and Single Judge found in favour of the respondent, granting interim relief from date of termination; the employer contended this was erroneous both in terms of status determination and the effective date. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and industrial tribunals within West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts deciding similar questions; Supreme Court for interpretation |
| Overrules | No prior binding precedent overruled, but Tribunal order and Single Bench’s fixing of effective date for interim relief are set aside to that extent. |
| Distinguishes | Distinguishes between provisional and final determinations of “workman” status; decision in B.G. Sampat (FB) clarified. |
| Follows | Follows B.G. Sampat (FB) (2001), Ganges Printing Ink (1986), Supreme Court decisions on definition of “workman” |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that the determination of “workman” status at the interim relief stage under Sec. 15(2)(b) is only provisional and based on a strong prima facie case; it is not a final adjudication for all purposes.
- Reiterates that the order granting interim relief, once made, is final and binding for its duration and does not operate like an interlocutory order subject to subsequent variation.
- Modifies previous tribunal and Single Bench practice by holding that interim relief, when granted under Sec. 15(2)(b), must be effective from the date of reference, not the date of termination.
- Lawyers can use this as binding authority in West Bengal to resist arguments seeking to treat prima facie findings at interim stage as final determinations.
- Sets clear procedural boundaries between interim and final stages of dispute under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court restated the legal distinction between provisional findings for interim relief under Section 15(2)(b) and final determination at Award stage.
- Reaffirmed Full Bench ruling (B.G. Sampat) that the tribunal’s finding of “workman” status at the interim stage is not final, but is based on a strong prima facie case supported by available material.
- Cited multiple Supreme Court and High Court judgments to underline that the purpose of interim relief is protective, designed to avoid hardship during pendency, not to conclusively decide disputed facts or status.
- Emphasized that, once granted, interim relief remains final and binding for its tenure, and is not varied like a typical interlocutory order.
- Explicitly held that the effective date for interim relief is the date of reference, correcting the Single Judge and Tribunal in this regard.
- Rejected the employer’s contentions on erroneous burden of proof and misappreciation of evidence, confirming that no detailed trial is required at interim relief stage.
- Maintained that all other substantive disputes—including the actual “workman” status—remain open for final adjudication on full evidence at the main trial.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant/Employer):
- The Tribunal and Single Judge wrongly held the respondent as a “workman”; findings were inconsistent with statutory burden of proof.
- The person claiming to be “workman” must prove it; onus not on employer.
- Both authorities misinterpreted evidence on nature of duties performed.
- Grant of interim relief was improper where respondent admitted gainful employment elsewhere.
- Relief, if any, should only be from the date of reference, not termination.
Respondent No. 3 (Employee):
- The appeal challenges not a final award but only interim relief; standards of review must differ.
- Reference itself raises a rebuttable presumption that respondent is a “workman”; the onus to rebut lies with the employer.
- At interim relief stage, only a strong prima facie case is needed, not final proof.
- Employer’s evidence (e.g., private investigator report) on alternative employment not properly proved.
- No error in Tribunal/Single Judge approach; appeal should be dismissed.
Factual Background
The present intra-court appeal arose out of an industrial dispute concerning the termination of respondent No.3 from Swarnakshar Prakasani Pvt Ltd. The respondent was referred to the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal granted interim relief to the respondent treating him as a “workman,” effective from the date of termination. The employer challenged both the respondent’s status and the effective date for interim relief before the Single Judge and, upon dismissal, before the Division Bench.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court analyzed Section 2(s) (definition of “workman”) and Section 15(2)(b) (interim relief provision) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
- Held that interim relief under Section 15(2)(b) must be based on a prima facie determination.
- Discussed the statutory mandate that interim relief, once granted, is not refundable or modifiable as an interlocutory order.
- Affirmed that the effective date of interim relief is the date of reference, not the date of termination, per legislative intent and judicial construction.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissent; both judges (Lanusungkum Jamir, J. and Rai Chattopadhyay, J.) concurred fully in the reasoning and result.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment clarifies the procedural standard for considering interim relief in industrial disputes: strong prima facie case, not final adjudication, suffices at interim stage.
- Modifies prior practice regarding the start date for interim relief, holding it must be from the date of reference.
- Reaffirms that interim findings do not preclude full trial and final determination.
- No new guidelines or changes to evidence standards announced.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment follows and affirms the Full Bench ruling in B.G. Sampat v. State of West Bengal (2001), clarifying settled law.