1 1 08.09.2026 Item No.19 Court No. 30 Aloke WPA 21860 of 2026 M/s. Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. A. Pandey Mr. Ghanshyam Pandey ...for the petitioner Ms. Madhu Jana Mr. Subhajit Das … for the State Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, ld. Sr. Adv. Ms. Senjuti Sengupta Ms. Shreya Das … for the respondent no. 2 1. The writ application has been preferred challenging an order dated 19.02.2026, passed by the learned First Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata in Case No. 07 of 20245 under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and to act in accordance with law. 2. Supplementary affidavit as per leave granted has been filed along with copy of reference before the Tribunal. 3. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel appearing virtually for the private respondent, it appears that the First Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata vide the impugned order had made the following observations in respect of the issue raised by the petitioner in 2 2 the writ application. The said observations being relevant are as follows : “If that be the fact, then the question as to whether the applicant comes under the purview of workman u/s 2(s) or f alls within the exception u/s2(s)(iv), are purely the mixed question of law and fact and required to be decided by taking evidence. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, I am in definite opinion that the point raised by the OP/Company by its petition dated 23.05.2025 is based on mixed question of law and fact. So, it cannot be considered as preliminary issue and to be disposed of first. Thus, the prayer made by the OP/Company through petition dated 23.05.2025 stands rejected and at the same time this issue to be considered together with all other issues on merit of the proceedings. In this context it is pertinent to mention that though in an order of reference only 2(two) issues have been framed, I think another vital issue to be framed for adjudication, which is as follows : 1) As to whether the application is maintainable in law and its fact as per definition of Section 2(s) or its exception u/s 2(s)(iv) of the Industrial Disputes Act.” 4. The learned Tribunal has also framed an additional issue to the issues in the reference. 3 3 5. Considering the facts and the said observation of the learned Judge of the Tribunal, this Court finds no irregularity in the observation of the learned Tribunal who has also framed a separate issue on the point raised by the petitioner herein in the writ application. 6. The writ application is accordingly dismissed as the impugned order calls for no interference. 7. Connected application, if any, stands disposed of. 8. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. ( Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. )