Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and 11 ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors Vs State of Gujarat and 11 ors - Citation 749787 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '749787',
			'acts' => 'Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - Sections 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 17B, 17(1), 32, 32F, 32I, 32O, 32P, 32U, 43ID, 64, 88E and 118; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules; <a href="/act/50818/petroleum-act-1934-30-of-1934-complete-act">Petroleum Act, 1934</a>; Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/135899/bombay-tenancy-and-agricultural-lands-act-1948-complete-act">Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948</a> - Sections 6, 43, 48, 63 and 63AA; Customs Act - Sections 129A; Imports and Exports (Control) Act; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1979 - Sections 2; Bombay Land Revenue Code - Sections 48, 48(2), 61, 65, 65A, 65B, 65B(1), 65B(4), 65B(5), 65D, 65(1) and 67A; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development (Amendment) Act, 1997; Urban Development Rules; Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 - Rules 87, 87A to 87C and 100A; Gujarat Land Revenue (Amend',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application Nos. 8116, 8117 and 8118 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 whole time or part time by the Legislature in the definition of working journalist in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. The expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. If a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. However, the Court will have to apply various tests applicable fort determining the relationship of employer and employee such as the control test, the integration or the organization test. The 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 falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day. Depending on his requirement, the employer may employ two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. Similarly, it may be more convenient for the concerned person to do work on part-time basis rather than for full time. However, convenience per se of the employer or the employee by itself does not confirm or negate the status of such person as a workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act, but the tests relevant for determining the status of a workman such as control test and integration test will be required to be applied. If a person is working with two employers on part-time basis on the same day, it may result into an anomalous situation and the Court will have to consider the nature of engagement in both the establishments. However, mere possibility of such an anomaly resulting by itself does not take away the status of the concerned person as a workman from both the establishments, but while granting and moulding the reliefs the Court will take these facts into consideration. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Harin P. Raval, Adv. for Petitioner Nos. 1-3',
			'counseldef' => ' A.D. Oza, G.P. and; L.R. Poojari, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5,; ',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-20',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' K.M. Mehta, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> IN SCA Nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">33. Though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, I have considered the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8116 of 2005 and I have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. The other two matters i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. In view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2006)2GLR1432',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '749787',
		(int) 1 => 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors Vs State of Gujarat and 11 ors - Citation 749787 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '749787',
		'acts' => 'Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - Sections 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 17B, 17(1), 32, 32F, 32I, 32O, 32P, 32U, 43ID, 64, 88E and 118; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules; <a href="/act/50818/petroleum-act-1934-30-of-1934-complete-act">Petroleum Act, 1934</a>; Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/135899/bombay-tenancy-and-agricultural-lands-act-1948-complete-act">Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948</a> - Sections 6, 43, 48, 63 and 63AA; Customs Act - Sections 129A; Imports and Exports (Control) Act; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1979 - Sections 2; Bombay Land Revenue Code - Sections 48, 48(2), 61, 65, 65A, 65B, 65B(1), 65B(4), 65B(5), 65D, 65(1) and 67A; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development (Amendment) Act, 1997; Urban Development Rules; Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 - Rules 87, 87A to 87C and 100A; Gujarat Land Revenue (Amend',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application Nos. 8116, 8117 and 8118 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 whole time or part time by the Legislature in the definition of working journalist in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. The expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. If a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. However, the Court will have to apply various tests applicable fort determining the relationship of employer and employee such as the control test, the integration or the organization test. The 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 falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day. Depending on his requirement, the employer may employ two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. Similarly, it may be more convenient for the concerned person to do work on part-time basis rather than for full time. However, convenience per se of the employer or the employee by itself does not confirm or negate the status of such person as a workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act, but the tests relevant for determining the status of a workman such as control test and integration test will be required to be applied. If a person is working with two employers on part-time basis on the same day, it may result into an anomalous situation and the Court will have to consider the nature of engagement in both the establishments. However, mere possibility of such an anomaly resulting by itself does not take away the status of the concerned person as a workman from both the establishments, but while granting and moulding the reliefs the Court will take these facts into consideration. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Harin P. Raval, Adv. for Petitioner Nos. 1-3',
		'counseldef' => ' A.D. Oza, G.P. and; L.R. Poojari, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5,; ',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-20',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' K.M. Mehta, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p> IN SCA Nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.</p><p>33. Though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, I have considered the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8116 of 2005 and I have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. The other two matters i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. In view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2006)2GLR1432',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '749787',
	(int) 1 => 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/749787/federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors Vs State of Gujarat and 11 ors - Citation 749787 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '749787',
			'acts' => 'Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - Sections 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 17B, 17(1), 32, 32F, 32I, 32O, 32P, 32U, 43ID, 64, 88E and 118; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules; <a href="/act/50818/petroleum-act-1934-30-of-1934-complete-act">Petroleum Act, 1934</a>; Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/135899/bombay-tenancy-and-agricultural-lands-act-1948-complete-act">Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948</a> - Sections 6, 43, 48, 63 and 63AA; Customs Act - Sections 129A; Imports and Exports (Control) Act; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1979 - Sections 2; Bombay Land Revenue Code - Sections 48, 48(2), 61, 65, 65A, 65B, 65B(1), 65B(4), 65B(5), 65D, 65(1) and 67A; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development (Amendment) Act, 1997; Urban Development Rules; Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 - Rules 87, 87A to 87C and 100A; Gujarat Land Revenue (Amend',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application Nos. 8116, 8117 and 8118 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 whole time or part time by the Legislature in the definition of working journalist in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. The expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. If a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. However, the Court will have to apply various tests applicable fort determining the relationship of employer and employee such as the control test, the integration or the organization test. The 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 falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day. Depending on his requirement, the employer may employ two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. Similarly, it may be more convenient for the concerned person to do work on part-time basis rather than for full time. However, convenience per se of the employer or the employee by itself does not confirm or negate the status of such person as a workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act, but the tests relevant for determining the status of a workman such as control test and integration test will be required to be applied. If a person is working with two employers on part-time basis on the same day, it may result into an anomalous situation and the Court will have to consider the nature of engagement in both the establishments. However, mere possibility of such an anomaly resulting by itself does not take away the status of the concerned person as a workman from both the establishments, but while granting and moulding the reliefs the Court will take these facts into consideration. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Harin P. Raval, Adv. for Petitioner Nos. 1-3',
			'counseldef' => ' A.D. Oza, G.P. and; L.R. Poojari, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5,; ',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-20',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' K.M. Mehta, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> IN SCA Nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">33. Though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, I have considered the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8116 of 2005 and I have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. The other two matters i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. In view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2006)2GLR1432',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '749787',
		(int) 1 => 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors Vs State of Gujarat and 11 ors - Citation 749787 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '749787',
		'acts' => 'Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - Sections 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 17B, 17(1), 32, 32F, 32I, 32O, 32P, 32U, 43ID, 64, 88E and 118; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules; <a href="/act/50818/petroleum-act-1934-30-of-1934-complete-act">Petroleum Act, 1934</a>; Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/135899/bombay-tenancy-and-agricultural-lands-act-1948-complete-act">Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948</a> - Sections 6, 43, 48, 63 and 63AA; Customs Act - Sections 129A; Imports and Exports (Control) Act; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1979 - Sections 2; Bombay Land Revenue Code - Sections 48, 48(2), 61, 65, 65A, 65B, 65B(1), 65B(4), 65B(5), 65D, 65(1) and 67A; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development (Amendment) Act, 1997; Urban Development Rules; Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 - Rules 87, 87A to 87C and 100A; Gujarat Land Revenue (Amend',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application Nos. 8116, 8117 and 8118 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 whole time or part time by the Legislature in the definition of working journalist in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. The expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. If a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. However, the Court will have to apply various tests applicable fort determining the relationship of employer and employee such as the control test, the integration or the organization test. The 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 falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day. Depending on his requirement, the employer may employ two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. Similarly, it may be more convenient for the concerned person to do work on part-time basis rather than for full time. However, convenience per se of the employer or the employee by itself does not confirm or negate the status of such person as a workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act, but the tests relevant for determining the status of a workman such as control test and integration test will be required to be applied. If a person is working with two employers on part-time basis on the same day, it may result into an anomalous situation and the Court will have to consider the nature of engagement in both the establishments. However, mere possibility of such an anomaly resulting by itself does not take away the status of the concerned person as a workman from both the establishments, but while granting and moulding the reliefs the Court will take these facts into consideration. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Harin P. Raval, Adv. for Petitioner Nos. 1-3',
		'counseldef' => ' A.D. Oza, G.P. and; L.R. Poojari, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5,; ',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-20',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' K.M. Mehta, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p> IN SCA Nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.</p><p>33. Though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, I have considered the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8116 of 2005 and I have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. The other two matters i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. In view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2006)2GLR1432',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '749787',
	(int) 1 => 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/749787/federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- 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 whole time or part time by the legislature in the definition of working journalist in the working journalists and other newspaper employees (conditions of service and miscellaneous provisions) act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior act i.e. industrial disputes act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. the expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors Vs State of Gujarat and 11 ors - Citation 749787 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '749787',
			'acts' => 'Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - Sections 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 17B, 17(1), 32, 32F, 32I, 32O, 32P, 32U, 43ID, 64, 88E and 118; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules; <a href="/act/50818/petroleum-act-1934-30-of-1934-complete-act">Petroleum Act, 1934</a>; Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/135899/bombay-tenancy-and-agricultural-lands-act-1948-complete-act">Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948</a> - Sections 6, 43, 48, 63 and 63AA; Customs Act - Sections 129A; Imports and Exports (Control) Act; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1979 - Sections 2; Bombay Land Revenue Code - Sections 48, 48(2), 61, 65, 65A, 65B, 65B(1), 65B(4), 65B(5), 65D, 65(1) and 67A; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development (Amendment) Act, 1997; Urban Development Rules; Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 - Rules 87, 87A to 87C and 100A; Gujarat Land Revenue (Amend',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application Nos. 8116, 8117 and 8118 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 whole time or part time by the Legislature in the definition of working journalist in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. The expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. If a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. However, the Court will have to apply various tests applicable fort determining the relationship of employer and employee such as the control test, the integration or the organization test. The 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 falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day. Depending on his requirement, the employer may employ two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. Similarly, it may be more convenient for the concerned person to do work on part-time basis rather than for full time. However, convenience per se of the employer or the employee by itself does not confirm or negate the status of such person as a workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act, but the tests relevant for determining the status of a workman such as control test and integration test will be required to be applied. If a person is working with two employers on part-time basis on the same day, it may result into an anomalous situation and the Court will have to consider the nature of engagement in both the establishments. However, mere possibility of such an anomaly resulting by itself does not take away the status of the concerned person as a workman from both the establishments, but while granting and moulding the reliefs the Court will take these facts into consideration. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Harin P. Raval, Adv. for Petitioner Nos. 1-3',
			'counseldef' => ' A.D. Oza, G.P. and; L.R. Poojari, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5,; ',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-20',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' K.M. Mehta, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> IN SCA Nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">33. Though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, I have considered the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8116 of 2005 and I have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. The other two matters i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. In view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2006)2GLR1432',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '749787',
		(int) 1 => 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors Vs State of Gujarat and 11 ors - Citation 749787 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '749787',
		'acts' => 'Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - Sections 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 17B, 17(1), 32, 32F, 32I, 32O, 32P, 32U, 43ID, 64, 88E and 118; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules; <a href="/act/50818/petroleum-act-1934-30-of-1934-complete-act">Petroleum Act, 1934</a>; Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/135899/bombay-tenancy-and-agricultural-lands-act-1948-complete-act">Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948</a> - Sections 6, 43, 48, 63 and 63AA; Customs Act - Sections 129A; Imports and Exports (Control) Act; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1979 - Sections 2; Bombay Land Revenue Code - Sections 48, 48(2), 61, 65, 65A, 65B, 65B(1), 65B(4), 65B(5), 65D, 65(1) and 67A; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development (Amendment) Act, 1997; Urban Development Rules; Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 - Rules 87, 87A to 87C and 100A; Gujarat Land Revenue (Amend',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application Nos. 8116, 8117 and 8118 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 whole time or part time by the Legislature in the definition of working journalist in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. The expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. If a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. However, the Court will have to apply various tests applicable fort determining the relationship of employer and employee such as the control test, the integration or the organization test. The 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 falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day. Depending on his requirement, the employer may employ two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. Similarly, it may be more convenient for the concerned person to do work on part-time basis rather than for full time. However, convenience per se of the employer or the employee by itself does not confirm or negate the status of such person as a workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act, but the tests relevant for determining the status of a workman such as control test and integration test will be required to be applied. If a person is working with two employers on part-time basis on the same day, it may result into an anomalous situation and the Court will have to consider the nature of engagement in both the establishments. However, mere possibility of such an anomaly resulting by itself does not take away the status of the concerned person as a workman from both the establishments, but while granting and moulding the reliefs the Court will take these facts into consideration. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Harin P. Raval, Adv. for Petitioner Nos. 1-3',
		'counseldef' => ' A.D. Oza, G.P. and; L.R. Poojari, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5,; ',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-20',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' K.M. Mehta, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p> IN SCA Nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.</p><p>33. Though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, I have considered the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8116 of 2005 and I have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. The other two matters i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. In view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2006)2GLR1432',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '749787',
	(int) 1 => 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/749787/federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors Vs State of Gujarat and 11 ors - Citation 749787 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '749787',
			'acts' => 'Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - Sections 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 17B, 17(1), 32, 32F, 32I, 32O, 32P, 32U, 43ID, 64, 88E and 118; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules; <a href="/act/50818/petroleum-act-1934-30-of-1934-complete-act">Petroleum Act, 1934</a>; Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/135899/bombay-tenancy-and-agricultural-lands-act-1948-complete-act">Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948</a> - Sections 6, 43, 48, 63 and 63AA; Customs Act - Sections 129A; Imports and Exports (Control) Act; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1979 - Sections 2; Bombay Land Revenue Code - Sections 48, 48(2), 61, 65, 65A, 65B, 65B(1), 65B(4), 65B(5), 65D, 65(1) and 67A; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development (Amendment) Act, 1997; Urban Development Rules; Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 - Rules 87, 87A to 87C and 100A; Gujarat Land Revenue (Amend',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application Nos. 8116, 8117 and 8118 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 whole time or part time by the Legislature in the definition of working journalist in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. The expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. If a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. However, the Court will have to apply various tests applicable fort determining the relationship of employer and employee such as the control test, the integration or the organization test. The 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 falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day. Depending on his requirement, the employer may employ two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. Similarly, it may be more convenient for the concerned person to do work on part-time basis rather than for full time. However, convenience per se of the employer or the employee by itself does not confirm or negate the status of such person as a workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act, but the tests relevant for determining the status of a workman such as control test and integration test will be required to be applied. If a person is working with two employers on part-time basis on the same day, it may result into an anomalous situation and the Court will have to consider the nature of engagement in both the establishments. However, mere possibility of such an anomaly resulting by itself does not take away the status of the concerned person as a workman from both the establishments, but while granting and moulding the reliefs the Court will take these facts into consideration. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Harin P. Raval, Adv. for Petitioner Nos. 1-3',
			'counseldef' => ' A.D. Oza, G.P. and; L.R. Poojari, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5,; ',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-20',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' K.M. Mehta, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> IN SCA Nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">33. Though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, I have considered the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8116 of 2005 and I have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. The other two matters i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. In view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2006)2GLR1432',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '749787',
		(int) 1 => 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors Vs State of Gujarat and 11 ors - Citation 749787 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '749787',
		'acts' => 'Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - Sections 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 17B, 17(1), 32, 32F, 32I, 32O, 32P, 32U, 43ID, 64, 88E and 118; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules; <a href="/act/50818/petroleum-act-1934-30-of-1934-complete-act">Petroleum Act, 1934</a>; Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/135899/bombay-tenancy-and-agricultural-lands-act-1948-complete-act">Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948</a> - Sections 6, 43, 48, 63 and 63AA; Customs Act - Sections 129A; Imports and Exports (Control) Act; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1979 - Sections 2; Bombay Land Revenue Code - Sections 48, 48(2), 61, 65, 65A, 65B, 65B(1), 65B(4), 65B(5), 65D, 65(1) and 67A; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development (Amendment) Act, 1997; Urban Development Rules; Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 - Rules 87, 87A to 87C and 100A; Gujarat Land Revenue (Amend',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application Nos. 8116, 8117 and 8118 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 whole time or part time by the Legislature in the definition of working journalist in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. The expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. If a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. However, the Court will have to apply various tests applicable fort determining the relationship of employer and employee such as the control test, the integration or the organization test. The 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 falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day. Depending on his requirement, the employer may employ two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. Similarly, it may be more convenient for the concerned person to do work on part-time basis rather than for full time. However, convenience per se of the employer or the employee by itself does not confirm or negate the status of such person as a workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act, but the tests relevant for determining the status of a workman such as control test and integration test will be required to be applied. If a person is working with two employers on part-time basis on the same day, it may result into an anomalous situation and the Court will have to consider the nature of engagement in both the establishments. However, mere possibility of such an anomaly resulting by itself does not take away the status of the concerned person as a workman from both the establishments, but while granting and moulding the reliefs the Court will take these facts into consideration. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Harin P. Raval, Adv. for Petitioner Nos. 1-3',
		'counseldef' => ' A.D. Oza, G.P. and; L.R. Poojari, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5,; ',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-20',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' K.M. Mehta, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p> IN SCA Nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.</p><p>33. Though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, I have considered the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8116 of 2005 and I have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. The other two matters i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. In view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2006)2GLR1432',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '749787',
	(int) 1 => 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/749787/federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

order in sca nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.33. though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, i have considered the facts of special civil application no. 8116 of 2005 and i have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. the other two matters i.e. special civil application nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. in view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. special civil application no. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs.

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors Vs State of Gujarat and 11 ors - Citation 749787 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '749787',
			'acts' => 'Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - Sections 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 17B, 17(1), 32, 32F, 32I, 32O, 32P, 32U, 43ID, 64, 88E and 118; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules; <a href="/act/50818/petroleum-act-1934-30-of-1934-complete-act">Petroleum Act, 1934</a>; Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/135899/bombay-tenancy-and-agricultural-lands-act-1948-complete-act">Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948</a> - Sections 6, 43, 48, 63 and 63AA; Customs Act - Sections 129A; Imports and Exports (Control) Act; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1979 - Sections 2; Bombay Land Revenue Code - Sections 48, 48(2), 61, 65, 65A, 65B, 65B(1), 65B(4), 65B(5), 65D, 65(1) and 67A; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development (Amendment) Act, 1997; Urban Development Rules; Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 - Rules 87, 87A to 87C and 100A; Gujarat Land Revenue (Amend',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application Nos. 8116, 8117 and 8118 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 whole time or part time by the Legislature in the definition of working journalist in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. The expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. If a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. However, the Court will have to apply various tests applicable fort determining the relationship of employer and employee such as the control test, the integration or the organization test. The 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 falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day. Depending on his requirement, the employer may employ two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. Similarly, it may be more convenient for the concerned person to do work on part-time basis rather than for full time. However, convenience per se of the employer or the employee by itself does not confirm or negate the status of such person as a workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act, but the tests relevant for determining the status of a workman such as control test and integration test will be required to be applied. If a person is working with two employers on part-time basis on the same day, it may result into an anomalous situation and the Court will have to consider the nature of engagement in both the establishments. However, mere possibility of such an anomaly resulting by itself does not take away the status of the concerned person as a workman from both the establishments, but while granting and moulding the reliefs the Court will take these facts into consideration. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Harin P. Raval, Adv. for Petitioner Nos. 1-3',
			'counseldef' => ' A.D. Oza, G.P. and; L.R. Poojari, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5,; ',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-20',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' K.M. Mehta, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> IN SCA Nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">33. Though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, I have considered the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8116 of 2005 and I have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. The other two matters i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. In view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2006)2GLR1432',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '749787',
		(int) 1 => 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors Vs State of Gujarat and 11 ors - Citation 749787 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '749787',
		'acts' => 'Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - Sections 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 17B, 17(1), 32, 32F, 32I, 32O, 32P, 32U, 43ID, 64, 88E and 118; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules; <a href="/act/50818/petroleum-act-1934-30-of-1934-complete-act">Petroleum Act, 1934</a>; Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/135899/bombay-tenancy-and-agricultural-lands-act-1948-complete-act">Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948</a> - Sections 6, 43, 48, 63 and 63AA; Customs Act - Sections 129A; Imports and Exports (Control) Act; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1979 - Sections 2; Bombay Land Revenue Code - Sections 48, 48(2), 61, 65, 65A, 65B, 65B(1), 65B(4), 65B(5), 65D, 65(1) and 67A; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development (Amendment) Act, 1997; Urban Development Rules; Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 - Rules 87, 87A to 87C and 100A; Gujarat Land Revenue (Amend',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application Nos. 8116, 8117 and 8118 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 whole time or part time by the Legislature in the definition of working journalist in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. The expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. If a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. However, the Court will have to apply various tests applicable fort determining the relationship of employer and employee such as the control test, the integration or the organization test. The 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 falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day. Depending on his requirement, the employer may employ two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. Similarly, it may be more convenient for the concerned person to do work on part-time basis rather than for full time. However, convenience per se of the employer or the employee by itself does not confirm or negate the status of such person as a workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act, but the tests relevant for determining the status of a workman such as control test and integration test will be required to be applied. If a person is working with two employers on part-time basis on the same day, it may result into an anomalous situation and the Court will have to consider the nature of engagement in both the establishments. However, mere possibility of such an anomaly resulting by itself does not take away the status of the concerned person as a workman from both the establishments, but while granting and moulding the reliefs the Court will take these facts into consideration. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Harin P. Raval, Adv. for Petitioner Nos. 1-3',
		'counseldef' => ' A.D. Oza, G.P. and; L.R. Poojari, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5,; ',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-20',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' K.M. Mehta, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p> IN SCA Nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.</p><p>33. Though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, I have considered the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8116 of 2005 and I have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. The other two matters i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. In view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2006)2GLR1432',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '749787',
	(int) 1 => 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/749787/federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER',
	(int) 1 => '<p> IN SCA Nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>33. Though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, I have considered the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8116 of 2005 and I have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. The other two matters i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. In view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 4
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ORDER

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors Vs State of Gujarat and 11 ors - Citation 749787 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '749787',
			'acts' => 'Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - Sections 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 17B, 17(1), 32, 32F, 32I, 32O, 32P, 32U, 43ID, 64, 88E and 118; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules; <a href="/act/50818/petroleum-act-1934-30-of-1934-complete-act">Petroleum Act, 1934</a>; Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/135899/bombay-tenancy-and-agricultural-lands-act-1948-complete-act">Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948</a> - Sections 6, 43, 48, 63 and 63AA; Customs Act - Sections 129A; Imports and Exports (Control) Act; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1979 - Sections 2; Bombay Land Revenue Code - Sections 48, 48(2), 61, 65, 65A, 65B, 65B(1), 65B(4), 65B(5), 65D, 65(1) and 67A; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development (Amendment) Act, 1997; Urban Development Rules; Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 - Rules 87, 87A to 87C and 100A; Gujarat Land Revenue (Amend',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application Nos. 8116, 8117 and 8118 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 whole time or part time by the Legislature in the definition of working journalist in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. The expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. If a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. However, the Court will have to apply various tests applicable fort determining the relationship of employer and employee such as the control test, the integration or the organization test. The 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 falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day. Depending on his requirement, the employer may employ two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. Similarly, it may be more convenient for the concerned person to do work on part-time basis rather than for full time. However, convenience per se of the employer or the employee by itself does not confirm or negate the status of such person as a workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act, but the tests relevant for determining the status of a workman such as control test and integration test will be required to be applied. If a person is working with two employers on part-time basis on the same day, it may result into an anomalous situation and the Court will have to consider the nature of engagement in both the establishments. However, mere possibility of such an anomaly resulting by itself does not take away the status of the concerned person as a workman from both the establishments, but while granting and moulding the reliefs the Court will take these facts into consideration. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Harin P. Raval, Adv. for Petitioner Nos. 1-3',
			'counseldef' => ' A.D. Oza, G.P. and; L.R. Poojari, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5,; ',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-20',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' K.M. Mehta, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> IN SCA Nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">33. Though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, I have considered the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8116 of 2005 and I have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. The other two matters i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. In view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2006)2GLR1432',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '749787',
		(int) 1 => 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors Vs State of Gujarat and 11 ors - Citation 749787 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '749787',
		'acts' => 'Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - Sections 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 17B, 17(1), 32, 32F, 32I, 32O, 32P, 32U, 43ID, 64, 88E and 118; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules; <a href="/act/50818/petroleum-act-1934-30-of-1934-complete-act">Petroleum Act, 1934</a>; Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/135899/bombay-tenancy-and-agricultural-lands-act-1948-complete-act">Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948</a> - Sections 6, 43, 48, 63 and 63AA; Customs Act - Sections 129A; Imports and Exports (Control) Act; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1979 - Sections 2; Bombay Land Revenue Code - Sections 48, 48(2), 61, 65, 65A, 65B, 65B(1), 65B(4), 65B(5), 65D, 65(1) and 67A; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development (Amendment) Act, 1997; Urban Development Rules; Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 - Rules 87, 87A to 87C and 100A; Gujarat Land Revenue (Amend',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application Nos. 8116, 8117 and 8118 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 whole time or part time by the Legislature in the definition of working journalist in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. The expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. If a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. However, the Court will have to apply various tests applicable fort determining the relationship of employer and employee such as the control test, the integration or the organization test. The 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 falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day. Depending on his requirement, the employer may employ two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. Similarly, it may be more convenient for the concerned person to do work on part-time basis rather than for full time. However, convenience per se of the employer or the employee by itself does not confirm or negate the status of such person as a workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act, but the tests relevant for determining the status of a workman such as control test and integration test will be required to be applied. If a person is working with two employers on part-time basis on the same day, it may result into an anomalous situation and the Court will have to consider the nature of engagement in both the establishments. However, mere possibility of such an anomaly resulting by itself does not take away the status of the concerned person as a workman from both the establishments, but while granting and moulding the reliefs the Court will take these facts into consideration. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Harin P. Raval, Adv. for Petitioner Nos. 1-3',
		'counseldef' => ' A.D. Oza, G.P. and; L.R. Poojari, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5,; ',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-20',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' K.M. Mehta, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p> IN SCA Nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.</p><p>33. Though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, I have considered the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8116 of 2005 and I have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. The other two matters i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. In view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2006)2GLR1432',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '749787',
	(int) 1 => 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/749787/federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER',
	(int) 1 => '<p> IN SCA Nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>33. Though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, I have considered the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8116 of 2005 and I have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. The other two matters i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. In view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 4
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

IN SCA Nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors Vs State of Gujarat and 11 ors - Citation 749787 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '749787',
			'acts' => 'Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - Sections 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 17B, 17(1), 32, 32F, 32I, 32O, 32P, 32U, 43ID, 64, 88E and 118; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules; <a href="/act/50818/petroleum-act-1934-30-of-1934-complete-act">Petroleum Act, 1934</a>; Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/135899/bombay-tenancy-and-agricultural-lands-act-1948-complete-act">Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948</a> - Sections 6, 43, 48, 63 and 63AA; Customs Act - Sections 129A; Imports and Exports (Control) Act; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1979 - Sections 2; Bombay Land Revenue Code - Sections 48, 48(2), 61, 65, 65A, 65B, 65B(1), 65B(4), 65B(5), 65D, 65(1) and 67A; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development (Amendment) Act, 1997; Urban Development Rules; Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 - Rules 87, 87A to 87C and 100A; Gujarat Land Revenue (Amend',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application Nos. 8116, 8117 and 8118 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 whole time or part time by the Legislature in the definition of working journalist in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. The expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. If a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. However, the Court will have to apply various tests applicable fort determining the relationship of employer and employee such as the control test, the integration or the organization test. The 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 falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day. Depending on his requirement, the employer may employ two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. Similarly, it may be more convenient for the concerned person to do work on part-time basis rather than for full time. However, convenience per se of the employer or the employee by itself does not confirm or negate the status of such person as a workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act, but the tests relevant for determining the status of a workman such as control test and integration test will be required to be applied. If a person is working with two employers on part-time basis on the same day, it may result into an anomalous situation and the Court will have to consider the nature of engagement in both the establishments. However, mere possibility of such an anomaly resulting by itself does not take away the status of the concerned person as a workman from both the establishments, but while granting and moulding the reliefs the Court will take these facts into consideration. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Harin P. Raval, Adv. for Petitioner Nos. 1-3',
			'counseldef' => ' A.D. Oza, G.P. and; L.R. Poojari, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5,; ',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-20',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' K.M. Mehta, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> IN SCA Nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">33. Though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, I have considered the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8116 of 2005 and I have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. The other two matters i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. In view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2006)2GLR1432',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '749787',
		(int) 1 => 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors Vs State of Gujarat and 11 ors - Citation 749787 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '749787',
		'acts' => 'Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - Sections 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 17B, 17(1), 32, 32F, 32I, 32O, 32P, 32U, 43ID, 64, 88E and 118; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules; <a href="/act/50818/petroleum-act-1934-30-of-1934-complete-act">Petroleum Act, 1934</a>; Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/135899/bombay-tenancy-and-agricultural-lands-act-1948-complete-act">Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948</a> - Sections 6, 43, 48, 63 and 63AA; Customs Act - Sections 129A; Imports and Exports (Control) Act; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1979 - Sections 2; Bombay Land Revenue Code - Sections 48, 48(2), 61, 65, 65A, 65B, 65B(1), 65B(4), 65B(5), 65D, 65(1) and 67A; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development (Amendment) Act, 1997; Urban Development Rules; Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 - Rules 87, 87A to 87C and 100A; Gujarat Land Revenue (Amend',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application Nos. 8116, 8117 and 8118 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 whole time or part time by the Legislature in the definition of working journalist in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. The expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. If a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. However, the Court will have to apply various tests applicable fort determining the relationship of employer and employee such as the control test, the integration or the organization test. The 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 falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day. Depending on his requirement, the employer may employ two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. Similarly, it may be more convenient for the concerned person to do work on part-time basis rather than for full time. However, convenience per se of the employer or the employee by itself does not confirm or negate the status of such person as a workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act, but the tests relevant for determining the status of a workman such as control test and integration test will be required to be applied. If a person is working with two employers on part-time basis on the same day, it may result into an anomalous situation and the Court will have to consider the nature of engagement in both the establishments. However, mere possibility of such an anomaly resulting by itself does not take away the status of the concerned person as a workman from both the establishments, but while granting and moulding the reliefs the Court will take these facts into consideration. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Harin P. Raval, Adv. for Petitioner Nos. 1-3',
		'counseldef' => ' A.D. Oza, G.P. and; L.R. Poojari, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5,; ',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-20',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' K.M. Mehta, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p> IN SCA Nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.</p><p>33. Though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, I have considered the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8116 of 2005 and I have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. The other two matters i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. In view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2006)2GLR1432',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '749787',
	(int) 1 => 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/749787/federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER',
	(int) 1 => '<p> IN SCA Nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>33. Though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, I have considered the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8116 of 2005 and I have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. The other two matters i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. In view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 4
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

33. Though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, I have considered the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8116 of 2005 and I have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. The other two matters i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. In view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors Vs State of Gujarat and 11 ors - Citation 749787 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '749787',
			'acts' => 'Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - Sections 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 17B, 17(1), 32, 32F, 32I, 32O, 32P, 32U, 43ID, 64, 88E and 118; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules; <a href="/act/50818/petroleum-act-1934-30-of-1934-complete-act">Petroleum Act, 1934</a>; Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/135899/bombay-tenancy-and-agricultural-lands-act-1948-complete-act">Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948</a> - Sections 6, 43, 48, 63 and 63AA; Customs Act - Sections 129A; Imports and Exports (Control) Act; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1979 - Sections 2; Bombay Land Revenue Code - Sections 48, 48(2), 61, 65, 65A, 65B, 65B(1), 65B(4), 65B(5), 65D, 65(1) and 67A; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development (Amendment) Act, 1997; Urban Development Rules; Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 - Rules 87, 87A to 87C and 100A; Gujarat Land Revenue (Amend',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application Nos. 8116, 8117 and 8118 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - 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 whole time or part time by the Legislature in the definition of working journalist in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. The expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. If a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. However, the Court will have to apply various tests applicable fort determining the relationship of employer and employee such as the control test, the integration or the organization test. The 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 falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day. Depending on his requirement, the employer may employ two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. Similarly, it may be more convenient for the concerned person to do work on part-time basis rather than for full time. However, convenience per se of the employer or the employee by itself does not confirm or negate the status of such person as a workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act, but the tests relevant for determining the status of a workman such as control test and integration test will be required to be applied. If a person is working with two employers on part-time basis on the same day, it may result into an anomalous situation and the Court will have to consider the nature of engagement in both the establishments. However, mere possibility of such an anomaly resulting by itself does not take away the status of the concerned person as a workman from both the establishments, but while granting and moulding the reliefs the Court will take these facts into consideration. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Harin P. Raval, Adv. for Petitioner Nos. 1-3',
			'counseldef' => ' A.D. Oza, G.P. and; L.R. Poojari, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5,; ',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-20',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' K.M. Mehta, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> IN SCA Nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">33. Though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, I have considered the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8116 of 2005 and I have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. The other two matters i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. In view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2006)2GLR1432',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '749787',
		(int) 1 => 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors Vs State of Gujarat and 11 ors - Citation 749787 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '749787',
		'acts' => 'Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - Sections 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 17B, 17(1), 32, 32F, 32I, 32O, 32P, 32U, 43ID, 64, 88E and 118; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules; <a href="/act/50818/petroleum-act-1934-30-of-1934-complete-act">Petroleum Act, 1934</a>; Indian Explosives Act, 1884; <a href="/act/135899/bombay-tenancy-and-agricultural-lands-act-1948-complete-act">Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948</a> - Sections 6, 43, 48, 63 and 63AA; Customs Act - Sections 129A; Imports and Exports (Control) Act; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1979 - Sections 2; Bombay Land Revenue Code - Sections 48, 48(2), 61, 65, 65A, 65B, 65B(1), 65B(4), 65B(5), 65D, 65(1) and 67A; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development (Amendment) Act, 1997; Urban Development Rules; Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 - Rules 87, 87A to 87C and 100A; Gujarat Land Revenue (Amend',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application Nos. 8116, 8117 and 8118 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Federation of Gujarat Petroleum Dealers Association and 2 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - 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 whole time or part time by the Legislature in the definition of working journalist in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. The expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. If a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. However, the Court will have to apply various tests applicable fort determining the relationship of employer and employee such as the control test, the integration or the organization test. The 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 falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day. Depending on his requirement, the employer may employ two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. Similarly, it may be more convenient for the concerned person to do work on part-time basis rather than for full time. However, convenience per se of the employer or the employee by itself does not confirm or negate the status of such person as a workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act, but the tests relevant for determining the status of a workman such as control test and integration test will be required to be applied. If a person is working with two employers on part-time basis on the same day, it may result into an anomalous situation and the Court will have to consider the nature of engagement in both the establishments. However, mere possibility of such an anomaly resulting by itself does not take away the status of the concerned person as a workman from both the establishments, but while granting and moulding the reliefs the Court will take these facts into consideration. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Harin P. Raval, Adv. for Petitioner Nos. 1-3',
		'counseldef' => ' A.D. Oza, G.P. and; L.R. Poojari, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5,; ',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-20',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' K.M. Mehta, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER</p><p> IN SCA Nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.</p><p>33. Though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, I have considered the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8116 of 2005 and I have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. The other two matters i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. In view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2006)2GLR1432',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and 11 ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '749787',
	(int) 1 => 'federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/749787/federation-gujarat-petroleum-dealers-association-2-vs-state-11'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER',
	(int) 1 => '<p> IN SCA Nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>33. Though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, I have considered the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8116 of 2005 and I have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. The other two matters i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. In view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 4
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109