Vijay Kumar Vs. Neelam Rani

.....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..........learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the executing court should not have dismissed the execution and should have tried for reconciliation because it is provided under section 23 of the hindu marriage act. it is obligatory on the part of the courts to hold reconciliation proceedings at every stage. i am afraid the case law relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner as reported in sakki alias yashoda v. chhanwarlal (1), has no application in the facts of this case because it was not a proceeding under any section of the hindu marriage act. these were execution proceedings. the execution proceedings for a decree under section 9 conceives of only one contingency that if the decree is not obeyed, then the property of the opposite party can be attached. petitioner has not shown any existing property, therefore, whatever the executing court could do has not been asked for. what the executing court was not supposed to do is asked for in this court. there is no mention that any prayer was made before that court for any reconciliation proceedings. i am only dealing with an order passed by the executing court. there is no illegality which could be rectified in revisional jurisdiction. that being the position, only request and argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner for reconciliation is beyond the scope of this revision petition. the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner is in the background that neither of the party has instituted divorce petition. perhaps, they are not serious about it. may be, so that the question of not holding reconciliation in execution cannot be gone into. it was even not prayed for.5. no interference is called for. the revision petition having no force is hereby dismissed.