Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and 11 ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....to be examined whether the person was fully integrated into the employers concern or has remained apart from and independent of it. the other facts which may be relevant are as to who has the power to select and dismiss, to pay remuneration, to organize the work, etc. a full time worker usually works in a week for 40 hours or more depending on the award or agreement. if a person falls under the definition of workman under section 2(s) and does not fall in any excluded category, he will be covered by the definition of workman under the i.d. act, and he will be entitled to all the benefits under the said act. a perusal of section 2(s) indicates that it does not specifically refer to a part-time workman nor does it specifically exclude a part-time workman from the definition of :workman. since the number of hours is not the determining criterion for deciding whether a person falls within the definition of workman or not, it cannot be said that a part-time worker is not a workman within the meaning of the provisions of the i.d. act. however, to decide the status of a worker rendering services for less than 40 hours a week, various aspects are required to be considered. the.....order in sca nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.33. though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, i have considered the facts of special civil application no. 8116 of 2005 and i have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. the other two matters i.e. special civil application nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. in view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. special civil application no. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs.

Judgment:

ORDER

IN SCA Nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.

33. Though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, I have considered the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8116 of 2005 and I have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. The other two matters i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. In view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs.