Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.30 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Shri Birdhichand Sharma vs First Civil Judge Nagpur And Others on 9 December, 1960
"A plain reading of the definition of
"workman" does not exclude the part-
time workmen from the definition of
"workman". Such exclusion cannot be
read into it ipso-facto, except if it is
expressly provided or implied that no
other interpretation is possible, which is
not the case in the case in hand. We find
support for our view from the
observations made by the Supreme Court
in Birdhichand Sharma v. First Civil
Judge, (1961-II-LLJ-86), wherein the
Supreme Court in facts and
circumstances of the case, found that the
workers even doing the job at their home
are still workmen. Thus we are of the
considered view that a part-time
workman shall fall within the definition of
"workman" and the finding returned by
the Labour Court that a part-time worker
is not a workman, cannot be sustained.
We may hasten to add that nothing has
been pointed out that on any principle of
equity, justice, good conscience or the
technical interpretation of the definition
18
of workman that a part-time workman
cannot be termed as a workman is
unknown to the industrial world."
M. Sundaramoorthy, D. Vembuli, A. ... vs The Commissioner Of Labour, Teynampet, ... on 5 April, 2002
(d) Dr. P.N. Gulati vs. Labour Court, Gorakhpur
(Allahabad High Court) 1977 Lab I.C. 1088
Executive Engineer, Shimla Electrical ... vs Presiding Officer, H.P. Labour Court ... on 9 August, 2000
(e)Simla Devi vs Presiding Officer 1997 (1) LLJ 788
M/S Coal India Ltd. vs P.O. (Labour Court-3) & Others on 20 February, 2001
15. Similar views have been expressed in two Single Bench
decisions of the Delhi High Court Coal India Ltd. and
Kailash Chand Saigal (supra), by a Single Judge of the
Gujarat High Court in Govind Bhai's case (supra) and a
Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Yashwant
Sinha Yadav's case (supra). We are in respectful
agreement with these opinions as well.
Shankar Balaji Waje vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 October, 1961
11. For arriving at this conclusion, the Supreme Court
referred to various judgments of this Court including
Birdichand Sharma's case (supra) but distinguished the
judgment in Shankar Balaji Waje's case (supra) (rendered by
two Hon'ble Judges) by observing that the workman who was
claiming that status was not called upon to attend duties in
the factory itself as he was permitted to take the tobacco from
the factory owner and role the bidis at his residence at any
time without any fixed hour of work and that there was
16
absolutely no supervision of the so called employer over his
work. In conclusion, the Bench observed in (paragraph 37):
Section 79 in The Factories Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Uttaranchal Forest Hospital Trust vs Dinesh Kumar on 27 November, 2007
In Uttaranchal Forest's case (supra) this Court made a
passing reference to the status of a part time employee, but
12
the main issue before the Court was as to whether the
workman had, in fact, put in 240 days of service which would
entitle him to the benefit of Section 25F of the Act. This is
what the Court had to say: