Chhoga and ors. Vs. Rex

Chhoga and ors. vs Rex

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Aug 09, 1949

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/750847

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/750847
Court: Rajasthan
Judge: Atma Charan, J.C.
Decided On: Aug 09, 1949
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947. Section 2(s): [M.S. Shah, Sharad D. Dave & K.S. Jhaveri,JJ] Workman Part time employees Held, Part time employees are not excluded from the definition of workman in Section 2(s) merely on the ground that they are part time employees. The ex abundante cautela use of the words either...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chhoga and ors.

Respondent

Rex

Legal References

Reported In: 1950CriLJ877

Excerpt

.....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..........order under section 4, punjab public safety act. they in spite of this joined a procession, wherein slogans, with a view to creating public disturbance and inciting labourers to action were shouted. their action in so disobeying to comply with the order thus clearly comes within the purview of section 19, punjab public safety act. they have accordingly been rightly convicted under section 19 of the act.5. even if it be taken for granted just for arguments' sake that the applicants did attend or take part in the meeting, it is doubtful if it was a 'labour meeting.' a 'labour meeting as mentioned in the order, in my opinion, clearly meant a meeting relating to the problems of labour did not mean a meeting relating to the problems other than those of labour. there is hardly anything on the record of the trial court to justify the inference that the meeting was held in regard to the problems of labour. no doubt, s. i. mangal singh in his evidence says that kesri mai in the meeting had demanded the leaders under arrest to be released. however, no independent evidence in corroboration thereof is forthcoming on behalf of the prosecution. i would, in the circumstances, prefer to give the applicants the benefit of doubt in regard to their having attended or taken part in the labour meeting.6. the applicants stand sentenced each to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 200. considering the nature of the slogans shouted in the procession, the sentences of imprisonment do not at all seem to be excessive. the applicants, however, belong to the labour class and live hand to mouth. it would, in the circumstances, meet the ends of justice if the sentences of fine are set aside.7. the application in revision accordingly is partly allowed, the conviction and the sentences of imprisonment of the applicants are maintained, and the sentences of tine are set aside; the application in revision otherwise is dismissed.8. the applicants are on bail, and be taken in.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Atma Charan, J.C.

1. This is an application in revision by Chhoga and three ofcher3 from the order of Mr. D. N. Roy, Sessions Judge, Ajmer-Marwara, Ajmer, dated 3rd June 1949, in appeal maintain, ing their conviction under Section 19, Punjab Public Safety Act (n [2] of 1947) as made applicable to the Province of Ajmer-Merwara and reducing their sentences each to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Bs, 200.

2. The case of the prosecution was that the applicants had been served by the District Magistrate with written notices Under section i, Punjab Public Safety Act prohibiting them from attending or taking part in any labour meeting or in any movement subversive of law and order and that they inspite thereof attended a labour meeting and also joined a procession, wherein slogans with a view to creating public disturbance and inciting labourers to action were shouted. The two Courts below relied on the prosecution version of the story, and held that the applicants had not only attended the labour meeting but had also joined a procession, which was subversive of law and order.

3. The main contention of the counsel for the applicants before the Court is that there is nothing in the record of the trial Court to justify the inference that the applicants had joined a procession, which was subversive of law and order, and had also attended a labour meeting. The prosecution have produced no less than five witnesses in support of their version of tha story. The sum total of their evidence clearly goes to show that the applicants were in the procession, wherein slogans 'Comrade Bhardwaj ka khoon ka badla khoon se lenge ; police raj khatam karo, sarmayadarika nashbo.laljhandft zindabad-duniya ko mazdooron ek ho', were shouted. The evidence is that of two indepen- dent witnesses and three police witnesses. The applicants in defence have produced two witnesses each to show that they were elsewhere at the time in question. The evidence is that of no independent witnesses. No plea of alibi to the effect had been raised by the applicants, when their statements were recorded by the trial Court. The two Courts below, in the circumstances, have rightly discarded the evidence in defence and have rightly relied on the prosecution version of the story.

4. The applicants admittedly had been directed neither to attend nor to take part in any movement subversive of law and order Under Section 4, Punjab Public Safety Act. They in spite of this joined a procession, wherein slogans, with a view to creating public disturbance and inciting labourers to action were shouted. Their action in so disobeying to comply with the order thus clearly comes within the purview of Section 19, Punjab Public Safety Act. They have accordingly been rightly convicted Under Section 19 of the Act.

5. Even if it be taken for granted just for arguments' sake that the applicants did attend or take part in the meeting, it is doubtful if it was a 'labour meeting.' A 'labour meeting as mentioned in the order, in my opinion, clearly meant a meeting relating to the problems of labour did not mean a meeting relating to the problems other than those of labour. There is hardly anything on the record of the trial Court to justify the inference that the meeting was held in regard to the problems of labour. No doubt, S. I. Mangal Singh in his evidence says that Kesri Mai in the meeting had demanded the leaders under arrest to be released. However, no independent evidence in corroboration thereof is forthcoming on behalf of the prosecution. I would, in the circumstances, prefer to give the applicants the benefit of doubt in regard to their having attended or taken part in the labour meeting.

6. The applicants stand sentenced each to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200. Considering the nature of the slogans shouted in the procession, the sentences of imprisonment do not at all seem to be excessive. The applicants, however, belong to the labour class and live hand to mouth. It would, in the circumstances, meet the ends of justice if the sentences of fine are set aside.

7. The application in revision accordingly is partly allowed, the conviction and the sentences of imprisonment of the applicants are maintained, and the sentences of tine are set aside; the application in revision otherwise is dismissed.

8. The applicants are on bail, and be taken in custody forthwith by the trial Court and sent to jail to undergo the remaining portion of their sentences of imprisonment,

Same Parties Chhoga and ors. vs Rex Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Atma Charan, J.C.

Criminal