In an important judgment upholding the rights of long-serving contract workers, the Calcutta High Court has dismissed appeals filed by the Board of Major Port Authority for Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata, thereby affirming the regularisation of 61 waterfront workers who had served for decades under exploitative short-term arrangements.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Reetobro to Kumar Mitra, while pronouncing the judgment in the case of Board of Major Port Authority for Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata & Anr. Versus National Union of Water front Workers (INTUC) & Ors.( 2025 LLR WEB 541) upheld the findings of the Industrial Tribunal, which had ordered the regularisation of the workers.
Background of the Case
The dispute dates back several years when 61 workmen engaged at the Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata, were employed continuously but subjected to artificial one-day breaks after every 41 days of work — a long-standing practice designed to prevent them from acquiring permanent status under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Despite performing duties identical to regular employees and working against sanctioned permanent posts, the workers were denied regularisation and associated benefits. The Industrial Tribunal had earlier held that such a system amounted to an unfair labour practice, directing their regularisation from the date of reference of the dispute.
What High Court Held:
The Port Authority challenged the Tribunal’s decision, arguing that there were no substantive vacancies and that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction.
Also read – Medical leave not to be counted as part of bond service: Madras HC
High Court rejected these contentions, holding that the findings of fact were well-supported by evidence. The Bench observed that the workers had been continuously engaged in essential port operations for years and were performing work of a permanent and perennial nature.
“The deliberate imposition of one-day breaks every 41 days is a systematic device to deprive employees of their statutory rights and constitutes an unfair labour practice under the Industrial Disputes Act,” the Court observed in paragraphs 23 and 24 of its judgment.
Finding no perversity or legal infirmity in the Tribunal’s order, the Bench dismissed the appeals, affirming that the workers were entitled to regularisation from the date of dispute reference and all consequential benefits.
“The High Court has reaffirmed that employers cannot camouflage permanent employment through contractual or casual arrangements when workers are performing continuous duties on sanctioned posts,” said a senior labour law practitioner commenting on the verdict.
The judgment is being hailed as a major victory for organised labour and a strong reminder to public authorities against exploiting loopholes in employment practices. It reinforces the judiciary’s consistent stance that artificial breaks and long-term ad hoc engagements violate both the spirit and letter of labour law protections.
With the dismissal of the appeals, the 61 workers’ long struggle for recognition has finally reached a lawful and fair conclusion.
