Manidhari International Vs. O.L. of Jalan Ispat Casting Ltd. and 4 ors.

.....control test is one of the important tests, but is not to be taken as the sole test. it is also required 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 control test, the integration test and all the other relevant tests are as much applicable for deciding the status of a person rendering service on part-time basis as these tests are required to be applied for deciding the status of a person rendering the services on full-time basis. since persons may be engaged for part-time work for various reasons, while deciding the question whether a person rendering services on part-time basis is a workman or not, the nature of the industry, the nature of services being rendered by the person, the terms and conditions of engagement and various other factors will have to be taken into consideration before coming to the conclusion whether such a person..........nos. 2 and 3 are secured creditors. in view of the order proposed to be passed, we do not think notices are required to be issued to the respondent nos. 2 to 5. even otherwise, respondent nos. 2 to 5 have no stakes in the present matter. 2. the facts for disposal of the present appeal in nutshell are that certain properties of the company under liquidation were sought to be auctioned. there were bidders in different groups. the present appellant made the highest offer for group sb and submitted the earnest money deposit. when the matter came up before the learned company judge for confirmation of the sale and acceptance of the offer made by the appellant, certain objections were raised and the learned company judge observed that the official valuer's report was not proper. the valuation was to be re-done and the property was to be re-advertised for auction and only then, it could be sold. the appellant, though was initially aggrieved by this direction, but at this stage, mr. pranav g. desai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant does not press that part of the relief. 3. according to mr. desai, learned company judge, while directing preparation of the fresh inventory and re-auction of the property, directed that the earnest money deposit paid by the appellant should be retained by the official liquidator. according to mr. desai, once the sale is not confirmed and there are no lapses on the part of the appellant, then, the appellant is entitled to refund of the earnest money deposit. 4. after hearing the parties, we must observe that the learned company judge, though was trying to protect the interest of the company under liquidation, at the same time, went little wrong in issuing direction that the earnest money deposited by the appellant be not refunded to it till fresh offers are received and the sale is made in pursuance to the fresh advertisement/offers. 5. it is trite law that that if an offer made by a group is not.....