⚖️ Fake Breaks = Unfair Labour Practice: Calcutta High Court’s Landmark Verdict

on

⚖️Fake Breaks = Unfair Labour Practice: Calcutta High Court’s Landmark Verdict

📰 Introduction

In a significant step toward protecting the dignity and rights of India’s workforce, the Calcutta High Court has ruled that keeping workmen as casual workers for years and giving them artificial breaks amounts to unfair labour practice.
The verdict reinforces the principle that continuous employment under the guise of temporary status is not only unethical but also illegal under labour law.



🧾 Background of the Case

The case titled Kolkata Port Trust (through Chairman) & Ors. vs National Union of Waterfront Workers & Ors.,
(W.P.A. No. 8919 of 2021 and W.P.A. No. 10267 of 2021), decided on 18 March 2024, came before Justice Krishna Rao of the Calcutta High Court.

The dispute arose when a group of workers, employed at the Kolkata Port, alleged that:

  • They had been working continuously for several years;

  • Yet they were kept on “casual” or “temporary” rolls;

  • Every 41 days, they were terminated and reappointed, creating an artificial break in service;

  • The sole intent was to deny them permanency and statutory benefits.

The workers’ union challenged this long-standing practice as exploitative, unfair, and contrary to labour jurisprudence.

⚙️ The Employer’s Stand

The Kolkata Port Trust argued that:

  • These workers were engaged only on a temporary basis,

  • The breaks were procedural, and

  • There was no guarantee of continuity.

In short, the employer claimed that no “right to permanency” could arise because the contracts technically ended every few weeks.

⚖️ The Court’s Observations

Justice Krishna Rao, after examining records and evidence, rejected the employer’s defense and made several strong observations:

“To continue workmen as casuals for years together by introducing artificial breaks amounts to exploitation of labour and is a clear unfair labour practice.”

“Such actions defeat the constitutional principles of equality and dignity of work.”

The Court noted that:

  • The nature of work performed by the workers was perennial and essential;

  • The artificial breaks were deliberately designed to deny continuity of service;

  • Hence, the employer’s conduct violated Sections 25T and 25U of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

📜 Legal Foundation

The judgment relied on the Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly Item 10, which defines unfair labour practice as:

“To employ workmen as casuals and to continue them for years, with the object of depriving them of the benefits of permanent work.”

This provision ensures that employers cannot disguise permanent employment under the garb of temporary arrangements.

👨‍⚖️ Key Takeaways from the Judgment

  1. Artificial breaks created to deny continuity are illegal and void.

  2. Continuous and perennial work must lead to regularisation.

  3. Casual employment cannot be a permanent status.

  4. Exploitation through technicalities is against industrial justice.

  5. Employers are bound by ethical and statutory compliance to treat employees fairly.

💡 Impact of the Ruling

This judgment sends a clear message across industries — casualisation of permanent work is not acceptable.
It empowers workers to seek regularisation and fair treatment where their duties are continuous in nature.

For employers, it’s a compliance wake-up call:

  • Avoid misuse of temporary contracts.

  • Maintain clear records of genuine temporary engagements.

  • Conduct regular audits of workforce classification.

  • Recognise long-term workers as part of the permanent establishment.

🧭 Compliance Monk Insight

From a compliance standpoint, this verdict aligns with global best practices that emphasise:

  • Job security,

  • Fair treatment, and

  • Human dignity at work.

Employers are encouraged to treat labour compliance not as a legal burden but as a strategic element of ethical governance.

📌 Conclusion

The Calcutta High Court has once again upheld the spirit of the law — that workmen deserve fairness, respect, and stability.
Artificial breaks and indefinite casualisation undermine not only the law but also the moral fabric of employment relations.

This judgment is a milestone in India’s journey toward ethical and equitable labour practices.

🕊️ Final Word

“Law is not just about compliance — it’s about conscience.”

Stay informed. Stay compliant. Stay fair.

🎯 Join Compliance Monk Membership

Comments

Post a Comment