Kaluram Vs. Shakuntala Devi

.....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..........this reply is supported by anaffidavit filed by the plaintiff. after hearingthe learned counsel for the parties, the learnedtrial court vide the impugned order dt. 13-9-1989 has dismissed the application of thedefendant, who has filed this revision petitionin this court. 2. admittedly in the application winder order 6, rule 17 of the code the source of information of the defendant-applicant/in regard to the plaintiff having applied for' permission to construct the shop had not been given. the same was the position in regard to affidavit filed in support of the- application. 'the defendant did not file any documentary evidence' in' the form of the copy' of the site plan said to have been submitted by the plaintiff in the office of the municipal council. the plaintiff specifically denied that any such permission had been sought for and supported this fact by an affidavit.3. the court while dealing with an application under order 6 rule 17 of the code has also to see whether the application has beenmade bona fide. it appears that after taking adjournments for addressing arguments, the petitioner has moved this application with a view to delay the decision of the suit. the learned trial court has given good reasons for dismissing the application and in my view no interference is called for.4. the revision petition, therefore,' fails and is dismissed with costs.