1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/77/2024 IA No.CAN/1/2025 The Executive Engineer Vs. S. Prabhakaran and another Mr. Rakesh Kumar … for the appellant Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar … for the respondents September 22, 2026 [SR] Item No.7 1. The present intra-court appeal is directed against an order of the learned Single Bench dated 04.11.2024 passed in a writ proceeding. The writ petition was filed challenging the Award dated 27.06.2018, passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.Case No.21 of 2016, which held: “In this case the services of the respondent had been terminated on regular basis and she has been re-appointed after a gap of one or two days. Such a course of action was adopted by the Appellant with a view to defeat the object of the Act. Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 therefore is not attracted in the instant case. Thus upon hearing the Learned Advocate and upon perusing the materials on record and considering relevant provisions of Industrial Dispute Act 1947 and Judicial Pronouncements there is no iota of doubt to hold that the termination of the First Party workman by the Second Party is bad in law. Thus the reference made by the Lieutenant Governor Andaman and Nicobar Administration being Notification No-LR-1(59)/55 dated 03.06.2004 stands disposed. In the instant case compensation is not an adequate relief in the view of this Court, and re- instatement of the First Party workmen with 25% back wages would be just and reasonable. Hence, it Ordered Hence the Second Party is directed to re-instate the First Party workmen Shri S. Prabhakaran, Shri Sadhu Babu, Shri T. Simahadri and Shri T.Thirumoorthy with 25% back wages.” 2 2. The Hon’ble Single Judge, after considering the submissions of the parties, the relevant case laws cited at the bar allowed the writ petition filed by the employer in the following terms:- “22. In those circumstances, this Court directs that the impugned award dated 28th June, 2018 be upheld to the extent of direction of reinstatement of the two contesting workmen. 23. Insofar as the calculation of 25% of backwages awarded, this Court is of the view that in view of the long pendency of the instant proceeding, the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to each of the two contesting workmen should be awarded instead of a complicated calculation of 25% of backwages to each of the workmen. 24. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed. 25. There shall no order as to costs.” 3. The order of the learned Single Judge is dated 04.11.2024. It is assailed by the employer in the present proceeding. 4. When the matter is taken up, the Court is informed that the case of another workman, namely Smt Rekha Nair and some others was considered by the learned Single Judge Bench by an order dated 14.06.2024, in WPA/241/2019. The order of the learned Single Judge Bench was put to challenge in intra- court appeal, MAT/18/2025. The facts and circumstances of the case of Smt Rekha Nair & others and the present workman are similarly circumstanced without any difference. The Coordinate Bench has modified the order passed by the learned Single Judge Bench in the case of Smt Rekha Nair in the following terms:- 17. The question of payment of back wages would arise only as a consequential relief to reinstatement. In the instant case were this Court finds that there is no case for 3 reinstatement made out. The question of payment of back wages would not even otherwise arise. The finding of the Single Bench to this extent is therefore calls for no interference. 18. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is seen that the three workmen have put in two or three years of service and the award was passed in the year 2018. 19. The workmen would at best be entitled to a lumpsum compensation for being retrenched in violation of Section 25 (f) of the Act of 1947. 20. In the light of the above and in the special facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to increase the compensation payable to the three workmen from Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- each. 21. Compensation shall be payable together with interest @ 6% per annum from 20th September, 2018 (the date of award) till the date of actual payment. 22. It is expected that the payment is made within a period of one month from date. In default, the rate of interest would increase to 9% per annum.” 5. Learned advocate for the employer has tried to distinguish the case before this Court by submitting that in the present case, the Industrial Tribunal recorded a finding in the award regarding the workman in the present case being employed for only 89 days in a year. 6. We are not impressed by such submission for two reasons. 7. Firstly, there is no finding in the case of Smt Rekha Nair that the workman therein worked for any period longer than the work discharged by the workman in the present case. 8. Secondly, a plain reading of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in the case of the present writ petitioners reveals that they were employed throughout the year, but the employment was given a rest of two days after every 89 days with the oblique motive of depriving the workman, the beneficial objective of section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4 9. Therefore, the submission that the workman had less than 89 days, so as to distinguish the case of the workman herein, with Smt. Rekha Nair is unsustainable. 10. No other point of distinction was highlighted. 11. There being no distinction in the facts and circumstances of this case, in relation to service rendered under the same employer, the order of the Coordinate Bench dated 03.08.2026 passed in the appeal (MAT/18/2025) squarely covers the case of the workman in the present case. 12. Learned advocate for the workman also submits that the workmen would be satisfied with the relief granted by the Coordinate Bench in MAT/18/2025. 13. We thus, have no reason for depriving the workman in the present case, the same benefit granted to Smt Rekha Nair by the Coordinate Bench. 14. Such being the facts and circumstances, the order dated 04.11.2024, of the Hon’ble Single Judge Bench passed in WPA 236 of 2018 is modified; and the present appeal and writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as MAT/18/2025, extracted above. 15. Any application pending stands disposed of. 16. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. ( Madhuresh Prasad, J. ) ( Prasenjit Biswas, J. )