In Sri Hansraj Koley v. The Secretary, Labour Department (WPA 10043 of 2025), Calcutta HC held guest faculty not a "workman" under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, as they are not regularly employed and receive honorarium, not wages, dismissing the writ petition.
Best way to automate statutory/referential drafting
“Guest Faculty is not a Workman under Industrial Dispute Act”
Citation: WPA 10043 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 24th June, 2025
Court: Calcutta High Court
Bench: Shampa Dutt Paul (J)
Facts
- Sri Hansraj Koley was engaged by UCO, RSETI, Hooghly for the training of rural unemployed youth in self-employment skills sponsored by the government.
- The employment was formalized by the letter dated 30/01/2012; the training and program duties were assigned by the letter dated 24/03/2012. He was drawing Rs 5,500/- as honorarium.
- His service was terminated verbally on 21/11/2012. A writ petition was filed (W.P. No. 31342 (W) of 2014) before Calcutta High Court which was disposed of on 04/12/2014.
- The issue was raised before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Kolkata for termination of service as well as dues.
- As the conciliation failed, the matter was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kolkata for adjudication. A settlement was arrived where UCo Bank Management agreed to pay Rs 2000/- for full and final settlement.
- Afterwards, Sri Hansraj Koley claimed for a regular job alleging wrongful termination under section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
Decision of the High Court
The court dismissed the writ petition and held that he was neither a “workman”, nor received any “wages” as he was not employed with the respondent Bank/ training institute and was given honorarium for taking training sessions as a guest faculty.
Key legal issues discussed
1. Whether Guest Faculty is a “workman” under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947?
No
Court observed that under section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, workman is defined as,
““workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry……”
So, the first condition is he has to be “employed”, which is a continuous process, having work on a regular basis and being paid for it. This was not the scenario with the petitioner as he was engaged for a “session” to take class as a “guest faculty”.
Moreover, there is a difference between wages and honorarium as “wages” is a fixed regular payment earned for work or services, paid on a daily or weekly basis.
So, petitioner being a guest faculty is not a workman under Industrial dispute act, 1947.
