Devilal Vs. Chander Singh

.....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..........lal v. hira chand, ilr (1956) 6 raj 694 in which it was held that the jurisdiction of civil courts continued to remain over those areas over which different courts exercised jurisdiction in consequence of the above notifications soon after their publication. this reference is made for a reconsideration of the above decision.6. we have reconsidered the decision in the light of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. we are of the opinion that the law laid down in it is correct. the court of munsif city, therefore, had no jurisdiction to, entertain the present suit.7. it is, however, no longer necessary to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court as the court of munsif city has since acquired jurisdiction over mahamandir area by virtue of notification no. f.2(3)jud/72 dated the 18th may, 1972. note 2 of that notification runs as follows :--'the expression 'city' refers to the area included in the municipality as constituted from time to time under the rajasthan municipalities act, 1959, rajasthan act (33 of 19591 or any other law for the time being in force'.we accordingly, decide the revisionapplication as indicated above. we leavethe parties to bear their own costs of it.