Chetan Kumar Vs. Smt. Kanta

.....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..........section 125 cr.p.c. and section 9 hindu marriage act were fought by them but it culminated into compromise. the appellant husband then filed a petition against respondent wife for seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. the wife denied the averments. issues were framed, evidence was adduced and the family court dismissed the petition on october 20, 2000. against this decree and judgment of the family court that the husband has preferred the instant appeal.4. mr. reashm bhargava, learned counsel for the appellant, canvassed that it is established from record that respondent wife suspected character of appellant. she nourished baseless belief about illicit relationship between the appellant and his bhabhi. this act of respondent amounts to cruelty. reliance is placed on a. jaychandra v. aneel kaur : air 2005 sc534 , parvati v. prem singh 2001 wlc (uc) 212 and indu mishra v. kovid kumar 2006 (1) dnj (raj.) 182 : rlw 2006(1) raj. 501.5. we, in view of the fact that both the parties have been residing together since september 22, 2004 and their conjugal harmony is restored, do not think that ground of cruelty still exists.6. for these reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed. no costs.