IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) WPA 8239 of 2025 Govind Gas Power Company & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. For the Petitioners : Mr. Balai Chandra Paul, Ms. Tithi Roy. For the Respondent : Mr. Kali Kinkar Dey. For the State : Mr. Asish Kr. Guha, Mr. Naren Ghosh Dastidar. Hearing concluded on : 01.08.2025 Judgment on : 21.08.2025 SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. : 1. The writ application has been preferred challenging the award dated 30th January, 2025 passed by the learned Seventh Industrial Tribunal in Case No. 5/23 under Section 2A (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act. 2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner No.1 is a partnership organization, which carries on the business of LPG Gas Distributor of Industries Oil Corporation for Burdwan Town of Page 2 Purba Burdwan employing 23 employees, maintaining the statutory principle of law. 3. The respondent No.2, allegedly claims to be the employee of the petitioner No.1 and had been working since February, 2015 as an Accountant. 4. The Respondent No.2 sent an impugned letter dated 16.08.2022 to the petitioner for withdrawing the alleged verbal order of termination w.e.f. March, 2022 and to let him join his service. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 2 was neither an employee of the company nor use to work as an Accountant in the office of the company at any point of time. 6. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 2 was an on call person for a particular job for a particular day but not an employee of the establishment. 7. It is further stated that the petitioner use to engage the respondent no. 2 occasionally due to his friendship with the respondent no. 2’s father who was facing financial difficulties and to help his friend financially, the respondent No.2 was called upon to work in a shop of "Soft Drink (Juice)" under the establishment/Trade name "Govind Drinks Corner" whose proprietor was only the petitioner No.2. 8. It is further stated that any engagement in the establishment of M/s Govind Gas Power Co were/are subject to the confirmation of Page 3 the IOCL and the establishment is legally bound to disclose the name of the employees/workers in the Form-B (Application for Registration) prescribed under Sub-rule (2) & (3) of rule 4 of the West Bengal Shop & Establishment Rules 1964 before the office of Inspector, Shop & Establishment, Govt. of West Bengal. But nowhere in any Govt. office the respondent no.2’s name had been/has been incorporated either as workman or Employee of either "Gobind Drink Corner" or "M/s Gobind Gas Power Co." 9. It is further stated that the amount shown as salary in the bank account of the respondent no. 2 is a clerical mistake by the bank authority and on detection of the said mistake, the bank was requested to correct the same. 10. It is further stated that the respondent no. 2 keeping the petitioner No.2 in dark, managed to get one certificate dated 22.12.2018, which was issued by the petitioner No.2 for helping the respondent No.2 for seeking any other job at Burdwan, now Purba Bardhaman. That letter had/has no connection and relevancy to the petitioner No.-1 . 11. The Opposite Party No.2 then raised an impugned industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 29.08.2022 for his alleged termination of service, but without any meeting for conciliation, the respondent No.2 applied for certificate to file the Page 4 case before the Tribunal and hence the impugned case was filed being No.5/2023. 12. The Learned Tribunal was pleased to pass the award under challenge on 30.01.2025, which was published on 10.02.2025. 13. Hence the writ application. 14. It appears that vide the award under challenge, Tribunal, relied upon Exhibit 4 which is a certificate issued by the petitioner no. 2, the owner of petitioner no. 1/company, wherein it has been stated that the respondent no. 2 is working for the establishment since 1994 and it is also stated therein, that if Rule permits, he may be included in the ESI list of the company employees. The said document though is admitted by the petitioner no. 2, but it is stated that it has been issued to help the respondent no. 2 to gain employment elsewhere. 15. The Tribunal also relied upon the bank statement relating to the account of the respondent no. 2. It appears that the salary of the respondent no. 2 was credited in his account by the petitioner on and from 03.01.2017 to 02.03.2022 (Exhibit 1) i.e., for a period of more than five years. 16. That apart from the said amount as salary, bonus, festival allowance etc. was also credited to the said account of the respondent no. 2. Page 5 17. The petitioner’s contention is that it was as donation, given to the respondent no. 2 and not salary, even though admittedly he was paid as stated for more than five years. 18. Finally the Tribunal decided as follows:- “………..Hence, it is ORDERED that the petition filed by the petitioner/workman Somnath Roy U/S 2A (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for passing an award for holding that the termination of service of the petitioner/workman, Somnath Roy as illegal and unjustified, reinstatement of his service in the M/S Gobind Gas Power Co. since 03.05.2022 with full back wages with other consequential benefits as admissible. under the law and issuance of an appointment letter since February, 2015 be and the same is considered and allowed in part against the Opposite Parties and their Compnay M/S Gobind Gas Power, & Co. on contest and without any cost and/or costs. Accordingly, the petitioner Somnath Roy is regarded or termed as a Workman' under the O.Ps and their company M/S Gobind Gas Power Co. i.e. „Employer‟ and it is further held that there is a relationship between the petitioner and the O.Ps and their company as Page 6 'Workman' and 'Employer'. That the verbal termination of service of the petitioner / workman, Somnath Roy from M/S Gobind Gas Power Co. by the O.P No.3 during the absence of OP No.2 is held illegal, unjustified and not in conformity with the principles of the disciplinary Rules. The petitioner/workman Somnath Roy is reinstated in his service on and from 03.05.2022 with full back wages i.e. from the date of termination of his service from M/S Gobind Gas Power Co. of the O.Ps together with other consequential service benefits including the arrear salary for the month of April, 2022 as admissible under the law. Ops and their Company M/S Gobind Gas Power Company are also directed to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner Somnath Roy, Workman since March, 2015 for rendering his duty or job as Workman in the office of M/S Gobind Gas Power & Co. O.Ps are directed to comply the aforesaid order of the Tribunal as directed herein above within a period of two (02) months from the date of passing of the order failing which the petitioner / workman is at liberty to execute the said judgment and order by adopting the appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. Page 7 Thus, this Case No.05 of 2023 U/S 2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereby stands disposed of. Sd/- Judge, 9th Industrial Tribunal. at Durgapur, Paschim Bardhaman.” 19. Notes of argument has been filed on behalf of the petitioner reiterating the facts stating the writ application. 20. The respondent no. 2 has also filed his written notes and relied upon the following judgment:- i. National Engineering Industries Ltd. Versus State of Rajasthan and Ors., 1999 Supreme Court (5) 87. 21. In the present case, the petitioner/company:- i) Issued a certificate stating that the respondent/workman was employed with the company since 1994. ii) Bank statement of the workman shows that he was paid an amount on regular basis (monthly) from January, 2017 to March, 2023 (more than five years) along with bonus, festival allowance etc. all of which was credited to his account in due course as done in the case of other regular employees. 22. The petitioners’ defence that the amounts were paid as donation as the workman’s father was his friend with financial difficulties Page 8 has no substance and thus being without merit, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 23. The findings of the tribunal thus being in accordance with law requires no interference. 24. WPA 8239 of 2025 is dismissed. 25. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. 26. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 27. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities. [Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.]