1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE BEFORE: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL) WPA 1521 of 2022 Vijai Shree Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. For the Petitioner :Mr. Soumya Majumder, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.K. Singh, Adv. Mr. R.K. Dubey, Adv. Mr. S.R. Singh, Adv. For the Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Lakshman Ch. Halder, Adv. Judgment reserved on : 28.08.2026 Judgment delivered on : 30.09.2026 SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.:- 1. The writ application has been preferred being aggrieved by an award dated 29.09.2021 passed by the learned 2nd Industrial Tribunal and published by an order of publication dated 14th December, 2021. 2. Vide the impugned award, the learned 2nd Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata, held as follows:- “So considering the Standing Orders of the O.P. company, admitted length of service of the workman from 01.04.1992 till 29.05.2011, Section 25-C Explanation and 25-B(2)(a)(u) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the entire materials on record I hold that though the petitioner started 2 working as badli worker in the O.P. company, by virtue of his long service from 01.04.1992 to 29.05.2011 he has become a regular worker under the O.P company and by violating the principles of natural justice and holding internal enquiry illegally, the O.P. company has illegally terminated the service of the petitioner and accordingly I hold that the termination of service of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.11.2011 is illegal and unjustified, and the petitioner is entitled to get reinstatement along with full back wages and other consequential benefits from 30.05.2011 till his reinstatement. So considering the entire materials on record 1 hold that the case is maintainable in its present from and law and the petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for In the result, the case succeeds. Hence, it is ORDERED that the Case No. 04 of 2012 under Section 10(1B)(d) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is allowed on contest against the OP company with a cost of Rs. 20,000.00. It is hereby declared that the order of termination of service dt. 01.11.2011 passed against the petitioner by the O.P. company is illegal, unjustified and void. 3 It is also declared that the petitioner is also entitled to be reinstated in his previous service as on 20.05.2011 with full back wages and the OP. company is directed to pay the full back wages to the petitioner from 30.05.2011 till his reinstatement with a compound interest of 10% p.a. on the entire arrear amount of back wages and the O.P company is also directed to pay this entire amount to the petitioner within 30 days from this date of order The O.P. company is directed to reinstate the petitioner on 01.11.2021 in his previous job, in default, the petitioner is at liberty to take legal action against the O.P. company.” 3. The petitioner’s case is that the award passed by the tribunal suffers from inconsistency and perversity in view of the facts that the tribunal disregarded Exbt.2, in respect of the employee who is a Badli worker. The tribunal also disregarded the admission of the workman that he is a Badli. It is further stated that the learned tribunal wrongly held that, as the respondent no.3 worked as a Badli employee from 01.04.1992 to 21.05.2011, (19 years), it was presumed that he worked for 240 days each year and was thus treated to be in continuous service. It is stated that the respondent no.2 did not produce any documents in support of his continuous service and/or to substantiate his case that he worked for 240 days in a year from 01.04.1992 to 21.05.2011. 4. The petitioner relies upon the following judgments:- 4 i) (2020) 7 SCC 275: (Para 18) - Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad -Vs. - Gangaram Narayan Ambekar and Others, ii) (2005) 5 SCC 100 (Full Bench): Manager, R.B.I., Bangalore - Vs. - S. Mani and Others, iii) (2002) 3 SCC 25:Para 2,3- Range Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani), iv) (1986) 3 SCC 588: Para 15-18 Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rashtriya Mills Mazdoor Sangh, v) (2009) 17 SCC 473: Para 7-9 - Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation -Vs.- T.V. Anandappa, vi) (2013) 4 CHN (CAL) 488: Para 6 to 20 - Gloster Limited -Vs.- State of West Bengal, vii) FMA 882 of 2024 - Paragraph 8 to 14 The Ganges Manufacturing Company Limited -Versus- State of West Bengal and others, Order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of Calcutta High Court. 5. The petitioner has thus prayed for setting aside of the impugned award. 6. The respondent no.3 workman submits that he is a regular employee and denies being a Badli worker. On filing his affidavit in opposition the respondent no.3 has stated that to prove regular employment he called for records from the Employees State Insurance Corporation which was produced and marked as Exhibit 10. It is further stated that it proved that he had put in more than 240 days a year during his service period. 5 7. The respondent no.3 further states that he produced the ESI Identity card to show his date of entry in the service was on 01.04.1992 and he has produced the records of the ESI authority to prove his number of days of work in the Mill. It is further stated that the respondent workman submits there was no reason /ground shown for non production of attendance register and such non production is intentional to suppress the fact that the respondent workman had regularly worked and completed more than 240 days in each year. Material placed by the workman (Exbt. 10) confirms the case of the workman. The respondent workman to get the benefits of the provisions contained in Section 114(f) of Indian Evidence Act placed sufficient evidence in support of the case. 8. The respondent’s case is that he was prevented from entering his work place on and from 29.05.2011. It is stated that in the termination letter, the writ petitioner company without holding any enquiry and or giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent workman stated that "The management has strong evidence i.e. eye witnesses as such there is no need for any formal enquiry in the matter and acts of misconducts as committed by all stand proved beyond doubt". The respondent submits that the writ petitioner company not only miserably failed to discharge their duty to follow the principles of natural justice, but also ignored the settled position of law and applied wrong standard of proof. Thus the termination letter is liable to be set aside. The workman refers to a judgment of the Hon'ble Court as passed in FMA no.1952 of 2002 6 Paresh Nath Chowdhury & Ors. vs Modern Food Industries (I) Ltd., & Ors. 9. The Respondent workman submits that merely designating him as casual, casual badli, badli for the purpose of depriving him to get the benefits of regular employee for a long period of about 20 years and terminating his service, keeping him out of employment for about 6 months for the purpose showing that the respondent no.3 has not worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months from termination in no way helps the writ petitioner to justify its illegal and unjustified acts and conducts and the Learned Tribunal granted relief in justified situation. 10. The respondent prays for dismissal of the writ application. 11. The State has filed notes of argument and stated therein that the petitioner has a jute mill employing about 2000 employees, where the private respondent no.3 was working as a Badli employee in terms of standing order as applicable to the petitioner. Pursuant to an incident that occurred on 29.05.2011, when the private respondent along with 4 other badli workers wrongfully confined Mr. D.R.Thakur, the then in charge of Weaving Section, was not allowed to enter the mill premises and ultimately the respondent/workman’s name was removed from the list of badli's. Proceeding initiated under section 10(1B)(d) ultimately culminated to an award dated 29.09.2021 12. By way of a supplementary affidavit the petitioner has placed copies of ESI document before this Court. 7 13. The status of a ‘Badli’ has been clearly laid down by this High Court in FMA 882 of 2024, The Ganges Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs State of West Bengal & Ors., decided on 21.11.2024, (Para 9, 14):- “9. It is clear from the above that a Badli workman while remaining in the records of the employer, is required to report every morning of a working day for duty. In the event of a vacancy in a permanent post of workman, such workman is allotted to the Badli worker. 14. A Badli workman like the respondent workman in the instant case stands on a completely different footing as explained in Lalappa Lingappa case (supra), he remains in the records of the Company as a Badli worker. He is like a spare workman. His engagement depends on whether a permanent workman is absent on the particular day. It is then that the Badli workman is entrusted with the work due to the absence of the permanent workman.” 14. The termination of the respondent workman, who has been proved to be a Badli, thus requires no formalities like that of a regular/permanent employee and in the present case, no work was allotted to the private respondent no. 3, after 29.05.2011. 15. The observation of the tribunal that:- “……..by virtue of his long service from 01.04.1992 to 29.05.2011, he has become a regular worker under the O.P company………….” is totally perverse, erroneous and not in accordance with law. 8 16. The private respondent was ‘Badli’ till 29.05.2011 and was not a regular/permanent employee. 17. WPA 1521 of 2022 is allowed. 18. The award dated 29.09.2021 passed by the learned 2nd Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata and published by an order of publication dated 14th December, 2021, are set aside. 19. The private respondent no. 3 is entitled to his dues and benefits, as a ‘Badli’ worker from 01.04.1992 to 29.05.2011. 20. Applications, if any, connected thereto stand disposed of consequently. 21. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 22. Photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)