Authority: High Court at Calcutta

Order Date: 21 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Central Bank of India (CBI) filed WPA 24372 of 2025; respondent Soumen Goswami filed WPA 10317 of 2025.
  • The writ applications challenged an award dated 13 December 2024 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata.
  • The Tribunal had directed CBI to pay Rs 2 lakh compensation to Soumen Goswami, a casual driver, for illegal termination under Section 25‑F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and ordered payment within two months of the award.
  • CBI contended that Goswami was engaged personally by bank executives without any formal appointment, thus not an employee under the Act, and argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
  • Goswami argued he was employed as a driver for the bank’s official vehicle from 2010 to 2017, was terminated on 24 April 2017, and sought reinstatement and back wages in addition to compensation.
  • Both parties relied on several Supreme Court judgments (e.g., Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Umadevi, University of Rajasthan vs Prem Lata Agarwal, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corp vs Mahadeo Krishna Naik) concerning casual/temporary employment and the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
  • The Tribunal’s findings included: (i) vehicle WB‑06G‑9338 was owned by CBI; (ii) Goswami was engaged by the bank’s security officer to drive the bank’s official vehicle; (iii) he rendered continuous service for more than 240 days per year from 2010 to 2017, satisfying Section 25‑B; (iv) the engagement was casual and constituted an unfair labour practice; (v) no back‑wage claim was made as Goswami remained employable; (vi) no evidence of a permanent vacant driver post existed, so regularisation was not applicable.
  • The High Court referred to Syed Yakoob vs K.S. Radhakrishnan (1964) to outline the scope of certiorari, emphasizing that factual findings of the Tribunal are not open to re‑examination unless based on no evidence.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court held that the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and made no error of law apparent on the face of the record.
  • Consequently, WPA 24372 of 2025 and WPA 10317 of 2025 were dismissed and disposed of.
  • The Tribunal’s award of Rs 2 lakh compensation to the driver stands.
  • All interim orders, if any, were vacated, and parties may obtain a certified copy of the judgment upon compliance with formalities.

Topics: Legal Judgment, Industrial Dispute, Compensation