.....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.....ordergupta, j.(1). the matter comes up on application under section 161 of the rajasthan high court rules for listing the case for admission.(2). since by order dated 29.4.98 further proceedings have been ordered to be stayed, the matter is sought to be listed for admission. by the impugned order the learned trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner filed u/s. 151 c.p.c. in the proceedings initiated on the petitioner's application under order 21 rule 97 c.p.c. the learned counsel for the parties state that the parties have already completed their pleadings in the proceedings under order 21 rule 97 c.p.c., the documents have also been submitted and the case is fixed in the executing court on 26.5.2000.(3). i have perused the provisions of order 21 rule 101, 103 and 105 c.p.c. it is clear that the learned trial court is to decide the application on the basis of the material already placed on record including the document. in such circumstances, since nothing more is to be done by the learned trial court except to decide the application under order 21 rule 97 c.p.c. and i understand there should be no impediment in the way of the learned trial court in hearing the said application on 26.5.2000 on merits itself and decide it within a day or two as it is already pending since december, 97. it is made clear that in this view of the matter the interim order dated 29.4.98 shall not come in the way of the learned court below in deciding the application on merits by hearing the final arguments on 26.5.2000 and deciding that application in the month of may, 2000 itself.(4). with this clarification this revision petition is ordered to be put up for admission on 1st june, 2000, on which date, the learned trial court should intimate to this court the decision of the application under order 21 rule 97 c.p.c.