Devilal Vs. Chander Singh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
civil courts - territorial jurisdiction of courts as given in notification--house situated within municipal limits when suit was instituted but notification not issued--held, munsif city has no jurisdiction to entertain suit.;the subject matter of the present suit is a house situated in mahamandir area. in the year it 1950 it was outside the municipal limits of jodhpur. when the present suit was instituted mahamandir had been included in jodhpur city.;the court of munsif city, therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. - 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. order1. this is a reference by one of us arising out of a revision application filed by the defendant against an order of munsif city, jodhpur, holding that he has jurisdiction to try the suit.2. by notifications dated 2-6-1950and 19-9-1950 there are two courts ofmunsifs at jodhpur -- court of munsifcity and court of munsif district. theirjurisdictions are as follows :--'court of munsif city ..... jodhpur city court of munsif district .....jodhpur sub-division (excluding jodh-pur city and bilara tehsil).'it is not disputed that by jodhpur city is meant the territorial limits of the jodhpur municipality.3. the subject-matter of the present suit is a house situated in maha-znandir area. in the year 1950 it was outside the municipal limits of jodhpur. when the present suit was instituted mahamandir had been included in jodhpur city.4. the trial court has held that as the area is now included in jod'hpur city, the court of munsif city has jurisdiction to try the present suit,5. on behalf of the defendent reliance was placed on a division bench decision of this court in gopi lal v. hira chand, ilr (1956) 6 raj 694 in which it was held that the jurisdiction of civil courts continued to remain over those areas over which different courts exercised jurisdiction in consequence of the above notifications soon after their publication. this reference is made for a reconsideration of the above decision.6. we have reconsidered the decision in the light of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. we are of the opinion that the law laid down in it is correct. the court of munsif city, therefore, had no jurisdiction to, entertain the present suit.7. it is, however, no longer necessary to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court as the court of munsif city has since acquired jurisdiction over mahamandir area by virtue of notification no. f.2(3)jud/72 dated the 18th may, 1972. note 2 of that notification runs as follows :--'the expression 'city' refers to the area included in the municipality as constituted from time to time under the rajasthan municipalities act, 1959, rajasthan act (33 of 19591 or any other law for the time being in force'.we accordingly, decide the revisionapplication as indicated above. we leavethe parties to bear their own costs of it.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is a reference by one of us arising out of a revision application filed by the defendant against an order of Munsif City, Jodhpur, holding that he has jurisdiction to try the suit.

2. By notifications dated 2-6-1950and 19-9-1950 there are two courts ofMunsifs at Jodhpur -- Court of MunsifCity and Court of Munsif District. Theirjurisdictions are as follows :--

'Court of Munsif City ..... Jodhpur City Court of Munsif District .....Jodhpur Sub-Division (excluding Jodh-pur City and Bilara Tehsil).'

It is not disputed that by Jodhpur City is meant the territorial limits of the Jodhpur Municipality.

3. The subject-matter of the present suit is a house situated in Maha-znandir area. In the year 1950 it was outside the municipal limits of Jodhpur. When the present suit was instituted Mahamandir had been included in Jodhpur City.

4. The trial Court has held that as the area is now included in Jod'hpur City, the Court of Munsif City has jurisdiction to try the present suit,

5. On behalf of the defendent reliance was placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Gopi Lal v. Hira Chand, ILR (1956) 6 Raj 694 in which it was held that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts continued to remain over those areas over which different courts exercised jurisdiction in consequence of the above notifications soon after their publication. This reference is made for a reconsideration of the above decision.

6. We have reconsidered the decision in the light of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the opinion that the law laid down in it is correct. The Court of Munsif City, therefore, had no jurisdiction to, entertain the present suit.

7. It is, however, no longer necessary to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court as the court of Munsif City has since acquired jurisdiction over Mahamandir area by virtue of notification No. F.2(3)Jud/72 dated the 18th May, 1972. Note 2 of that notification runs as follows :--

'The expression 'city' refers to the area included in the municipality as constituted from time to time under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, Rajasthan Act (33 of 19591 or any other law for the time being in force'.

We accordingly, decide the revisionapplication as indicated above. We leavethe parties to bear their own costs of it.