Long service as a Badli worker does not, by itself, confer regular employment.

The respondent workman was engaged by the petitioner jute mill as a “Badli” worker from 1 April 1992.

After an incident on 29 May 2011, he was not permitted to enter the mill and was removed from the Badli list.

The Industrial Tribunal held that his long service made him a regular worker, found his termination illegal, and directed reinstatement with full back wages, consequential benefits, interest and costs.

The employer challenged the award, contending that the workman remained a Badli worker and had not established continuous service of 240 days in each year.

The workman relied, among other things, on ESI records to support his claim of regular employment and continuous service.

1. Whether the workman’s long engagement as a Badli worker made him a regular or permanent employee.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s award of reinstatement and back wages could stand in light of the workman’s status as a Badli worker.

The Court considered the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, including the provisions on continuous service and lay-off referred to by the Tribunal, and the employer’s Standing Orders governing Badli workers.

Applying the Calcutta High Court’s decision in The Ganges Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., FMA 882 of 2024, the Court stated that a Badli worker remains on the employer’s records and is assigned work when a permanent workman is absent; the engagement therefore depends on the availability of such a vacancy.

The Court also referred to the explanation of a Badli worker in Lalappa Lingappa as quoted in Ganges Manufacturing.

The Tribunal had treated the workman’s lengthy service—from 1992 to 2011—as sufficient to make him a regular worker.

The High Court held that this conclusion was perverse and contrary to the law governing Badli employment: length of service alone did not change the workman’s status, since his engagement remained contingent on the absence of a permanent worker.

The Court accordingly treated him as a Badli worker until 29 May 2011 and noted that no work was allotted to him after that date.

It found the Tribunal’s award of reinstatement and full back wages unsustainable.

It held that the respondent was entitled to the dues and benefits applicable to him as a Badli worker for the period from 1 April 1992 to 29 May 2011.