Kedarmal Vs. the Crown

.....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.....orderramabhadran, j.c.1. the petitioner was convicted by mr. e. d. mehta, first class magistrate, of an offence under section 326, penal code, and sentenced to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. an appeal was dismissed by the learned sessions judge. hence this revision petition.2. mr. c. p. mathur for the petitioner, argued firstly that the offence, if any, was one under section 321, penal code and not under section 326. he elaborated this point by reference to the statement of dr. srilal, sub-assistant surgeon, to the effect that there were no marks of disfiguration on ml gyarsi's nose unless it was carefully examined. the injury export ex. 6 shows a cut 1' x 1/2' x 1/2' on the bridge of the nose, dr. srilal was examined as p.w. 4 on 8th june 1948, when ho stated that the above-named injury was a grievous one and had been caused by a sharp weapon like a' razor or a knife. he added that the internal wall separating the two nostrils was intact. i do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner when he says that this does not amount to permanent disfiguration. the girl was examined by the doctor on 9th january 1948, dr. srilal made a statement before the magistrate for the first time on 8th june 1948. even on that day, he noticed a partial disfiguration on the girl's nose. a chance remark made by him to the effect that it may heal in future, provided the girl put on flesh and his further observation more than 3 months later, to the effect that the disfiguration was not very noticeable, cannot take the offence beyond the mischief of section 326. both the courts below have held that the petitioner did commit this offence and in my opinion that finding must stand.3. in the next place, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the sentence was excessive. i do not, however, agree. there are earlier rulings of this court to the effect that nose-cutting is a very serious offence and buch cases should, ordinarily, be committed to the sessions. the sentence.....