Gujarat Ship Trading Corpn. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....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 falls within the definition of workman under section 2 (s) of the i.d. act. sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day. depending on his requirement, the employer may employ two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. similarly, it may be more convenient for the concerned person to do work..........j.1. the facts are not in dispute that issue regarding valuation of goods were pending before the tribunal in appeal filed by the department. the tribunal has decided the appeal without giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee and without service of the notice on the assessee-petitioner. nowhere in the reply to the petition, respondent has stated that service is effected. even a letter was written by the assessee to the registrar of the tribunal at mumbai. he also did not say that notice has been served, he simply said that notice was sent.2. in view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter with a direction to decide the appeal after opportunity of hearing given to the petitioner.3. counsel for the petitioner also brought to our notice that on 12-9-2005.....

Judgment:
ORDER

D.A. Mehta, J.

1. The facts are not in dispute that issue regarding valuation of goods were pending before the Tribunal in appeal filed by the Department. The Tribunal has decided the appeal without giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee and without service of the notice on the assessee-petitioner. Nowhere in the reply to the petition, respondent has stated that service is effected. Even a letter was written by the assessee to the Registrar of the Tribunal at Mumbai. He also did not say that notice has been served, he simply said that notice was sent.

2. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter with a direction to decide the appeal after opportunity of hearing given to the petitioner.

3. Counsel for the petitioner also brought to our notice that on 12-9-2005 this Court has directed him to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to show his bona fide, and that amount was deposited. Now he prays that the said amount be refunded. Considering the above, we direct the Registry to refund the amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner within a week

4. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.