“Guest Faculty ≠ Workman” – Calcutta High Court Re-delineates the Boundaries of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act

1. Introduction

The Calcutta High Court, in Hansraj Koley v. The Secretary, Labour Department & Ors. (WPA 10043 / 2025, decided on 24 June 2025), was tasked with determining whether a “guest faculty” who delivers sporadic training sessions for an honorarium can invoke Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (IDA) as a “workman” alleging illegal termination.

Parties:
• Petitioner – Sri Hansraj Koley, a trainer engaged by UCO-RSETI, Hooghly.
• Respondents – (i) Secretary, Labour Department (State of West Bengal); (ii) Director, UCO-RSETI; (iii) UCO Bank authorities.

Background: UCO-RSETI (Rural Self Employment Training Institute) occasionally hired outsiders as “guest faculty” for skill-development sessions. Mr. Koley was one such person, initially approached in March 2012 and paid a token honorarium per session. In November 2012 his services were no longer requisitioned. He treated this as a “verbal termination”, raised an industrial dispute, and eventually filed an application under Section 2A(2) IDA before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT). The CGIT dismissed his claim on 10 June 2024, holding he was never a “workman”. Mr. Koley then invoked the High Court’s writ jurisdiction seeking to quash the award.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) dismissed the writ petition, thereby affirming the CGIT’s award. The Court held:

• The petitioner was engaged only on a session-to-session basis; there was no continuous, regular or master-servant relationship.
• Payment made was a “token honorarium”, not “wages” under Section 2(rr) IDA.
• Consequently, the petitioner did not satisfy the statutory definition of “workman” in Section 2(s) IDA, and Section 2A (which is predicated on a valid employment relationship) could not be invoked.
• An earlier settlement before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) had already effected “full and final” resolution of the monetary dispute, further undermining the petitioner’s claim.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents & Authorities Considered

Although the judgment primarily relied on statutory interpretation, it implicitly aligns with several leading authorities:

• Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, (1978) 2 LLJ 73 – expansive definition of “industry” and indicia of employment relationship.
• H.R. Adyanthaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd., (1994) 5 SCC 737 – distinction between “contract of service” (employment) and “contract for service”.
• Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2004) 3 SCC 514 – factors to determine existence of employer-employee bond.
• National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, (2004) 2 SCC 1 – “honorarium” vis-à-vis “wages” (though in Compensation Act context, the principle of non-wage honorarium is relevant).

By emphasising the absence of continuity, control, and remuneration in the nature of wages, the High Court echoed these precedents without needing to cite them formally.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Definition-based approach: The Court started with the plain text of Sections 2(s) and 2(rr) IDA. Employment must be (a) continuous or regular, (b) for “hire or reward”, i.e., wages, and (c) within one of the accepted categories of work (manual, skilled, technical, etc.).
2. Nature of engagement: The 24 March 2012 letter expressly termed Mr. Koley a “Guest Faculty” invited to “take the following session… A token honorarium/conveyance expenses will be paid…”. Such sporadic, need-based invocations negate the existence of a contract of service.
3. Honorarium vs. Wages: Honorarium is ex gratia, discretionary, and not correlated to a salary scale or periodicity. The dictionary meaning and Section 2(rr) ingredients (dearness allowance, allowances, housing, etc.) were absent.
4. Settlement estoppel: The parties executed a settlement (17 June 2014) before the RLC(C), acknowledging full and final discharge upon payment of Rs 2,000. By operation of principles akin to accord and satisfaction and Section 18 (1) IDA, the petitioner’s dispute stood resolved.
5. Absence of procedural irregularity: The CGIT’s conclusion was supported by evidence (Exhibit M-4 and money receipts). Under Article 226, the Court will not re-appreciate facts unless findings are perverse.

3.3 Likely Impact of the Decision

• Clarity for Training Institutes: RSETIs, NGOs, and skill-development centres that rely on ad-hoc external experts can now point to this precedent to defend against IDA claims when genuine guest-faculty arrangements exist.
• Scope of “Workman” narrowed (in factual sense): The decision reinforces that mere payment for services, absent control and continuity, does not convert a person into a “workman”.
• Encouragement of Alternative Dispute Settlement: Parties are reminded that once a settlement under conciliation is signed, the door to parallel litigation is largely closed.
• Strategic Litigation Deterrent: Individuals contemplating Section 2A claims must evaluate the contract of employment threshold thoroughly; speculative filings risk dismissal with cost implications.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Workman (Section 2(s))

A person who works continuously under an employer’s supervision for wages. Casual, day-to-day or freelance workers usually fall outside unless they can show regularity and control.

Wages (Section 2(rr))

The regular monetary package (salary) plus allowances and in-kind benefits that an employee is contractually entitled to. One-time or voluntary payments don’t qualify.

Guest Faculty

Subject-matter expert invited occasionally to deliver lectures or training; typically remunerated by honorarium rather than salary.

Section 2A IDA

Allows an individual workman to directly approach adjudication for dismissal/termination without espousing a collective dispute.

Accord and Satisfaction

A legal doctrine whereby parties agree (accord) to discharge a claim in exchange for something and then perform it (satisfaction). Once completed, the original claim is extinguished.

5. Conclusion

The Calcutta High Court’s ruling in Hansraj Koley decisively underscores that not every service provider who enters the premises of an “industry” becomes its “workman”. Where the engagement is episodic, remunerated by token honorarium, and devoid of an enduring master-servant nexus, the protective umbrella of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be opened. The case also demonstrates the judiciary’s reluctance to upset reasoned tribunal findings, especially when parties have already executed a statutory settlement. Going forward, organizations can structure guest-faculty or consultant engagements with clearer documentation to prevent misclassification, while individuals must carefully gauge their statutory footing before litigating under labour-protective statutes.