Mt. Dhapu Vs. Rex

.....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..........been asked to make the statement. it has been held from time to time by the court that the provisions of section 206, criminal p.c. should be liberally construed in a country where so much prejudice exists against the appearance of women in public and where the procedural law is so frequently abused to gratify personal malice. the pleader for the applicant could have performed all the acts which devolved upon the applicant in the course of the trial, and could have answered the questions put to him by the trial court in his examination under 3. 246, criminal p.c. the nature of the case certainly is not such wherein the presence of the applicant in person should have been enforced by the trial court. if there was any particular reason, then the trial court should have mentioned it in its order.4. the application in revision accordingly is allowed and the order of the trial court directing the applicant to appear in person so that her statement be recorded is set aside. the applicant shall continue to remain exempted from personal appearance rules required under section 366 (2), criminal p.c.5. this order shall also govern criminal revisions nos. 43 and 44 of 1949.