IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Lanusungkum Jamir And The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay MAT 197 of 2024 With CAN 1 of 2025 &

CAN 2 of 2024 Central Bank of India Vs.

Sanjay Sutradhar and Ors.

For the Appellant : Mr. Bishwambhar Jha : Mr. H.K. Jha : Ms. Munmun Mishra For the respondent No. 1 : Mr. Pratik Majumder : Mr. Snehasish Dey Heard on : 10/09/2025 Judgment on : 27/10/2025 Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-

1. A judgment of the Hon‟ble Single Judge dated November 22, 2023, in writ petition No. WPA 8312 of 2020, is under challenge in the instant appeal. Likewise, the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal dated November 11, 2019, which was challenged in the said writ petition and upheld by the Hon‟ble Single Judge, has also been assailed here. The subject matter of dispute is in relation to the alleged unauthorised and illegal termination of service of the respondent No.1 by the present appellant and the respondent‟s claim for reinstatement in service. The dispute was referred for adjudication by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court to adjudicate upon the following :

“Schedule Whether employer – employee relationship existed between Shri Sanjay Sutradhar and the Central Bank of India, in relation to Hill Cart Road Branch, Siliguri? If yes, whether the termination of Shri Sanjay Sutradhar from service w.e.f. 31st December, 2007 is justified and legal? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. On contest, the Tribunal has passed an Award dated November 11, 2019, thereby holding inter alia that the respondent No.1 has been in continuous service and has actually worked for more than 240 days during the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of reference. That the respondent/workman could not have been denied the protection under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That, since he has been found to have been terminated without compliance with the provisions thereof, such termination was held to be illegal and the respondent/workman was directed to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages as stands due.

3. Challenging the said Award, the appellant/Bank filed the writ petition before the Hon‟ble Single Judge, which has been disposed of vide the judgment impugned. The Court has scrutinised the Award assailed before it. The Court finds no jurisdictional error committed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the Court has not interfered with the Award of Tribunal and its findings on fact and dismissed the writ petition.

Hence, the writ petitioner/appellant has filed the present appeal.

The respondent’s case:

4. The respondent was working in the appellant Bank, at Siliguri Branch, as a peon (Class-IV staff), with effect from January 1, 1986 till December 31, 2007. He has worked there in the said capacity continuously and uninterruptedly for 22 years as mentioned above.

5. During his service period, he has been paid monthly wages to the tune ranging from Rs.800/- to Rs.3000/- per month. Initially, wages have been disbursed to him through vouchers. Later on, the same used to be paid through his bank account and by way of debiting the Bank‟s “Profit & Loss Account”.

6. All of a sudden, due to the verbal order of the Chief Manager of the Bank, the respondent has been terminated with effect from January

1, 2008.

7. The respondent has alleged gross illegality and arbitrariness having been made by the appellant Bank by terminating him without following the due process of law. Hence, he has raised an industrial dispute which has culminated in the Award of the Tribunal dated November 11, 2019, challenged in the writ petition.

Counter case of the appellant:

8. The appellant says that the respondent‟s claim to be the workman of the appellant Bank is only unfounded and baseless. That the respondent was never appointed in the Bank and no appointment letter was ever issued to him. It says that there was no employer- employee relationship between