Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. Rajendra Singh and Party Semantic Analysis

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. Rajendra Singh and Party

Decided On : Feb-11-2005

Court : Rajasthan

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context

$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. Rajendra Singh and Party Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 482 Cr',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 135',
			(int) 2 => 'the Electricity Act',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 154',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 155 of the Act',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 153 of the Act',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 193',
			(int) 7 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
			(int) 8 => 'Section 193'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'K.C. Sharma',
			(int) 1 => 'Heard Counsel',
			(int) 2 => 'Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam',
			(int) 3 => 'Sawaimadhopur',
			(int) 4 => 'Moly',
			(int) 5 => 'Anr'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Engineer',
			(int) 1 => 'The Special Court',
			(int) 2 => 'the Special Court',
			(int) 3 => 'Special Court',
			(int) 4 => 'a Court of Session',
			(int) 5 => 'Special Court',
			(int) 6 => 'a Court of Session',
			(int) 7 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 8 => 'the Apex Court',
			(int) 9 => 'Special Court',
			(int) 10 => 'the Court of Session',
			(int) 11 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 12 => 'Court of Session',
			(int) 13 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 14 => 'Court',
			(int) 15 => 'the Court of Sessions',
			(int) 16 => 'Magistrates',
			(int) 17 => 'Court of Session',
			(int) 18 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 19 => 'the Special Court',
			(int) 20 => 'Magistrate'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Gangapur City',
			(int) 1 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 2 => 'Sections',
			(int) 3 => 'Sections',
			(int) 4 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 5 => 'Kerala',
			(int) 6 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 7 => 'Sections'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2003',
			(int) 1 => '1973',
			(int) 2 => '1989',
			(int) 3 => '1989',
			(int) 4 => '2003'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '135',
			(int) 1 => '139',
			(int) 2 => '1',
			(int) 3 => '2',
			(int) 4 => '135',
			(int) 5 => '139',
			(int) 6 => '135',
			(int) 7 => '139',
			(int) 8 => 'Session'.5',
			(int) 9 => '135',
			(int) 10 => '139'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '750427',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51534/electricity-act-2003-complete-act">Electricity Act, 2003</a> - Sections 135 to 139 and 154; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 193',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 168 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. Rajendra Singh and Party',
			'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' => 'Moly and Anr. v. State of Kerala;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' R.K. Agrawal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Arun Sharma, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-02-11',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' K.C. Sharma, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K.C. Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam, through its Assistant Engineer (O&M;), Gangapur City has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 6.10.2004 passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Offence), Sawaimadhopur, by which the learned Special Judge has returned the complaint filed under Section 135 of the <a href="/act/51534/electricity-act-2003-complete-act">Electricity Act, 2003</a> (for short 'the Act' to the petitioner for presentation before the competent court, inasmuch as, having gone through the complaint the learned Special Judge was of the view that the court subordinate to it should have committed the case to this court,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Special Court .was constituted for the purposes of providing speedy trial of offences referred to in Sections 135 to 139. Section 154 of the Act provides the procedure and power of the Special Court. Sub section (1) of Section 154 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under Sections 135 to 139 shall be triable only by the Special Court within whose jurisdiction such offence has been committed. Section 155 of the Act provides that the special court shall be deemed to be a Court of Session and shall have all powers of a Court of Session and the person conducting a prosecution before the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is clear that as per Section 153 of the Act, the special court constituted for the purposes of speedy trial of the offences referred to in Sections 135 to 139 of the Act exorcises the powers of a Court of Session. Section 193 Cr.P.C. does not empower the court of Session to take cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case is committed to it by a Magistrate under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Similar matter came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Moly and Anr. v. State of Kerala (I), wherein the Special Court exercising powers of the Court of Session straightway took cognizance of the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 without the case being committed to it by the Magistrate. Their Lordships considering the provisions of Section 193 Cr.P.C. and the provisions of the Act of 1989, concluded as hereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Neither in the Code nor in the Act is there any provision whatsoever, not even by implication, (hat the specified Court of Session (Special Court) can take cognizance of the offence under the Act as a court of original jurisdiction without the case being committed to it by a Magistrate. If that be so, there is no reason to think that the charge- sheet or a complaint can straight away be filed before such special Court for offences under the Act. It can be discerned from the hierarchical settings of criminal courts that the court of Session is given a superior and special status. Hence we think that the legislature would have thoughtfully relieved the Court of Sessions from the work of performing all the preliminary formalities which Magistrates have to do until the case is committed to the court of Session'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the case at hand, there is no provision whatsoever, under the Act of 2003 thereby empowering; the specified Court of Session (Special Court) to take cognizance of the offences referred to in Sections 135 to 139 of the Act, as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case is bring committed to it by a Magistrate. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Special Court has rightly returned the complaint to the complainant for being presented to the concerned Magistrate and hence the impugned order calls for no interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Consequently, this misc. petition is dismissed as it being devoid of merit.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2005(1)Raj446; 2005WLC(Raj)UC205',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Rajendra Singh and Party',
			'sub' => 'Criminal;Electricity',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '750427'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. Rajendra Singh and Party Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 482 Cr',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 135',
		(int) 2 => 'the Electricity Act',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 154',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 155 of the Act',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 153 of the Act',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 193',
		(int) 7 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
		(int) 8 => 'Section 193'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'K.C. Sharma',
		(int) 1 => 'Heard Counsel',
		(int) 2 => 'Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam',
		(int) 3 => 'Sawaimadhopur',
		(int) 4 => 'Moly',
		(int) 5 => 'Anr'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Engineer',
		(int) 1 => 'The Special Court',
		(int) 2 => 'the Special Court',
		(int) 3 => 'Special Court',
		(int) 4 => 'a Court of Session',
		(int) 5 => 'Special Court',
		(int) 6 => 'a Court of Session',
		(int) 7 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 8 => 'the Apex Court',
		(int) 9 => 'Special Court',
		(int) 10 => 'the Court of Session',
		(int) 11 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 12 => 'Court of Session',
		(int) 13 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 14 => 'Court',
		(int) 15 => 'the Court of Sessions',
		(int) 16 => 'Magistrates',
		(int) 17 => 'Court of Session',
		(int) 18 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 19 => 'the Special Court',
		(int) 20 => 'Magistrate'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Gangapur City',
		(int) 1 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 2 => 'Sections',
		(int) 3 => 'Sections',
		(int) 4 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 5 => 'Kerala',
		(int) 6 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 7 => 'Sections'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2003',
		(int) 1 => '1973',
		(int) 2 => '1989',
		(int) 3 => '1989',
		(int) 4 => '2003'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '135',
		(int) 1 => '139',
		(int) 2 => '1',
		(int) 3 => '2',
		(int) 4 => '135',
		(int) 5 => '139',
		(int) 6 => '135',
		(int) 7 => '139',
		(int) 8 => 'Session'.5',
		(int) 9 => '135',
		(int) 10 => '139'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '750427',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51534/electricity-act-2003-complete-act">Electricity Act, 2003</a> - Sections 135 to 139 and 154; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 193',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 168 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. Rajendra Singh and Party',
		'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' => 'Moly and Anr. v. State of Kerala;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' R.K. Agrawal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Arun Sharma, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-02-11',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' K.C. Sharma, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K.C. Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam, through its Assistant Engineer (O&M;), Gangapur City has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 6.10.2004 passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Offence), Sawaimadhopur, by which the learned Special Judge has returned the complaint filed under Section 135 of the <a href="/act/51534/electricity-act-2003-complete-act">Electricity Act, 2003</a> (for short 'the Act' to the petitioner for presentation before the competent court, inasmuch as, having gone through the complaint the learned Special Judge was of the view that the court subordinate to it should have committed the case to this court,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Special Court .was constituted for the purposes of providing speedy trial of offences referred to in Sections 135 to 139. Section 154 of the Act provides the procedure and power of the Special Court. Sub section (1) of Section 154 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under Sections 135 to 139 shall be triable only by the Special Court within whose jurisdiction such offence has been committed. Section 155 of the Act provides that the special court shall be deemed to be a Court of Session and shall have all powers of a Court of Session and the person conducting a prosecution before the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is clear that as per Section 153 of the Act, the special court constituted for the purposes of speedy trial of the offences referred to in Sections 135 to 139 of the Act exorcises the powers of a Court of Session. Section 193 Cr.P.C. does not empower the court of Session to take cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case is committed to it by a Magistrate under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Similar matter came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Moly and Anr. v. State of Kerala (I), wherein the Special Court exercising powers of the Court of Session straightway took cognizance of the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 without the case being committed to it by the Magistrate. Their Lordships considering the provisions of Section 193 Cr.P.C. and the provisions of the Act of 1989, concluded as hereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Neither in the Code nor in the Act is there any provision whatsoever, not even by implication, (hat the specified Court of Session (Special Court) can take cognizance of the offence under the Act as a court of original jurisdiction without the case being committed to it by a Magistrate. If that be so, there is no reason to think that the charge- sheet or a complaint can straight away be filed before such special Court for offences under the Act. It can be discerned from the hierarchical settings of criminal courts that the court of Session is given a superior and special status. Hence we think that the legislature would have thoughtfully relieved the Court of Sessions from the work of performing all the preliminary formalities which Magistrates have to do until the case is committed to the court of Session'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the case at hand, there is no provision whatsoever, under the Act of 2003 thereby empowering; the specified Court of Session (Special Court) to take cognizance of the offences referred to in Sections 135 to 139 of the Act, as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case is bring committed to it by a Magistrate. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Special Court has rightly returned the complaint to the complainant for being presented to the concerned Magistrate and hence the impugned order calls for no interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Consequently, this misc. petition is dismissed as it being devoid of merit.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2005(1)Raj446; 2005WLC(Raj)UC205',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Rajendra Singh and Party',
		'sub' => 'Criminal;Electricity',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '750427'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
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

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. Rajendra Singh and Party Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 482 Cr',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 135',
			(int) 2 => 'the Electricity Act',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 154',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 155 of the Act',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 153 of the Act',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 193',
			(int) 7 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
			(int) 8 => 'Section 193'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'K.C. Sharma',
			(int) 1 => 'Heard Counsel',
			(int) 2 => 'Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam',
			(int) 3 => 'Sawaimadhopur',
			(int) 4 => 'Moly',
			(int) 5 => 'Anr'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Engineer',
			(int) 1 => 'The Special Court',
			(int) 2 => 'the Special Court',
			(int) 3 => 'Special Court',
			(int) 4 => 'a Court of Session',
			(int) 5 => 'Special Court',
			(int) 6 => 'a Court of Session',
			(int) 7 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 8 => 'the Apex Court',
			(int) 9 => 'Special Court',
			(int) 10 => 'the Court of Session',
			(int) 11 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 12 => 'Court of Session',
			(int) 13 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 14 => 'Court',
			(int) 15 => 'the Court of Sessions',
			(int) 16 => 'Magistrates',
			(int) 17 => 'Court of Session',
			(int) 18 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 19 => 'the Special Court',
			(int) 20 => 'Magistrate'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Gangapur City',
			(int) 1 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 2 => 'Sections',
			(int) 3 => 'Sections',
			(int) 4 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 5 => 'Kerala',
			(int) 6 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 7 => 'Sections'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2003',
			(int) 1 => '1973',
			(int) 2 => '1989',
			(int) 3 => '1989',
			(int) 4 => '2003'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '135',
			(int) 1 => '139',
			(int) 2 => '1',
			(int) 3 => '2',
			(int) 4 => '135',
			(int) 5 => '139',
			(int) 6 => '135',
			(int) 7 => '139',
			(int) 8 => 'Session'.5',
			(int) 9 => '135',
			(int) 10 => '139'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '750427',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51534/electricity-act-2003-complete-act">Electricity Act, 2003</a> - Sections 135 to 139 and 154; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 193',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 168 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. Rajendra Singh and Party',
			'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' => 'Moly and Anr. v. State of Kerala;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' R.K. Agrawal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Arun Sharma, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-02-11',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' K.C. Sharma, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K.C. Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam, through its Assistant Engineer (O&M;), Gangapur City has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 6.10.2004 passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Offence), Sawaimadhopur, by which the learned Special Judge has returned the complaint filed under Section 135 of the <a href="/act/51534/electricity-act-2003-complete-act">Electricity Act, 2003</a> (for short 'the Act' to the petitioner for presentation before the competent court, inasmuch as, having gone through the complaint the learned Special Judge was of the view that the court subordinate to it should have committed the case to this court,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Special Court .was constituted for the purposes of providing speedy trial of offences referred to in Sections 135 to 139. Section 154 of the Act provides the procedure and power of the Special Court. Sub section (1) of Section 154 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under Sections 135 to 139 shall be triable only by the Special Court within whose jurisdiction such offence has been committed. Section 155 of the Act provides that the special court shall be deemed to be a Court of Session and shall have all powers of a Court of Session and the person conducting a prosecution before the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is clear that as per Section 153 of the Act, the special court constituted for the purposes of speedy trial of the offences referred to in Sections 135 to 139 of the Act exorcises the powers of a Court of Session. Section 193 Cr.P.C. does not empower the court of Session to take cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case is committed to it by a Magistrate under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Similar matter came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Moly and Anr. v. State of Kerala (I), wherein the Special Court exercising powers of the Court of Session straightway took cognizance of the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 without the case being committed to it by the Magistrate. Their Lordships considering the provisions of Section 193 Cr.P.C. and the provisions of the Act of 1989, concluded as hereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Neither in the Code nor in the Act is there any provision whatsoever, not even by implication, (hat the specified Court of Session (Special Court) can take cognizance of the offence under the Act as a court of original jurisdiction without the case being committed to it by a Magistrate. If that be so, there is no reason to think that the charge- sheet or a complaint can straight away be filed before such special Court for offences under the Act. It can be discerned from the hierarchical settings of criminal courts that the court of Session is given a superior and special status. Hence we think that the legislature would have thoughtfully relieved the Court of Sessions from the work of performing all the preliminary formalities which Magistrates have to do until the case is committed to the court of Session'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the case at hand, there is no provision whatsoever, under the Act of 2003 thereby empowering; the specified Court of Session (Special Court) to take cognizance of the offences referred to in Sections 135 to 139 of the Act, as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case is bring committed to it by a Magistrate. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Special Court has rightly returned the complaint to the complainant for being presented to the concerned Magistrate and hence the impugned order calls for no interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Consequently, this misc. petition is dismissed as it being devoid of merit.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2005(1)Raj446; 2005WLC(Raj)UC205',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Rajendra Singh and Party',
			'sub' => 'Criminal;Electricity',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '750427'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. Rajendra Singh and Party Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 482 Cr',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 135',
		(int) 2 => 'the Electricity Act',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 154',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 155 of the Act',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 153 of the Act',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 193',
		(int) 7 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
		(int) 8 => 'Section 193'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'K.C. Sharma',
		(int) 1 => 'Heard Counsel',
		(int) 2 => 'Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam',
		(int) 3 => 'Sawaimadhopur',
		(int) 4 => 'Moly',
		(int) 5 => 'Anr'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Engineer',
		(int) 1 => 'The Special Court',
		(int) 2 => 'the Special Court',
		(int) 3 => 'Special Court',
		(int) 4 => 'a Court of Session',
		(int) 5 => 'Special Court',
		(int) 6 => 'a Court of Session',
		(int) 7 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 8 => 'the Apex Court',
		(int) 9 => 'Special Court',
		(int) 10 => 'the Court of Session',
		(int) 11 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 12 => 'Court of Session',
		(int) 13 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 14 => 'Court',
		(int) 15 => 'the Court of Sessions',
		(int) 16 => 'Magistrates',
		(int) 17 => 'Court of Session',
		(int) 18 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 19 => 'the Special Court',
		(int) 20 => 'Magistrate'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Gangapur City',
		(int) 1 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 2 => 'Sections',
		(int) 3 => 'Sections',
		(int) 4 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 5 => 'Kerala',
		(int) 6 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 7 => 'Sections'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2003',
		(int) 1 => '1973',
		(int) 2 => '1989',
		(int) 3 => '1989',
		(int) 4 => '2003'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '135',
		(int) 1 => '139',
		(int) 2 => '1',
		(int) 3 => '2',
		(int) 4 => '135',
		(int) 5 => '139',
		(int) 6 => '135',
		(int) 7 => '139',
		(int) 8 => 'Session'.5',
		(int) 9 => '135',
		(int) 10 => '139'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '750427',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51534/electricity-act-2003-complete-act">Electricity Act, 2003</a> - Sections 135 to 139 and 154; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 193',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 168 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. Rajendra Singh and Party',
		'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' => 'Moly and Anr. v. State of Kerala;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' R.K. Agrawal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Arun Sharma, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-02-11',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' K.C. Sharma, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K.C. Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam, through its Assistant Engineer (O&M;), Gangapur City has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 6.10.2004 passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Offence), Sawaimadhopur, by which the learned Special Judge has returned the complaint filed under Section 135 of the <a href="/act/51534/electricity-act-2003-complete-act">Electricity Act, 2003</a> (for short 'the Act' to the petitioner for presentation before the competent court, inasmuch as, having gone through the complaint the learned Special Judge was of the view that the court subordinate to it should have committed the case to this court,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Special Court .was constituted for the purposes of providing speedy trial of offences referred to in Sections 135 to 139. Section 154 of the Act provides the procedure and power of the Special Court. Sub section (1) of Section 154 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under Sections 135 to 139 shall be triable only by the Special Court within whose jurisdiction such offence has been committed. Section 155 of the Act provides that the special court shall be deemed to be a Court of Session and shall have all powers of a Court of Session and the person conducting a prosecution before the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is clear that as per Section 153 of the Act, the special court constituted for the purposes of speedy trial of the offences referred to in Sections 135 to 139 of the Act exorcises the powers of a Court of Session. Section 193 Cr.P.C. does not empower the court of Session to take cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case is committed to it by a Magistrate under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Similar matter came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Moly and Anr. v. State of Kerala (I), wherein the Special Court exercising powers of the Court of Session straightway took cognizance of the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 without the case being committed to it by the Magistrate. Their Lordships considering the provisions of Section 193 Cr.P.C. and the provisions of the Act of 1989, concluded as hereunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Neither in the Code nor in the Act is there any provision whatsoever, not even by implication, (hat the specified Court of Session (Special Court) can take cognizance of the offence under the Act as a court of original jurisdiction without the case being committed to it by a Magistrate. If that be so, there is no reason to think that the charge- sheet or a complaint can straight away be filed before such special Court for offences under the Act. It can be discerned from the hierarchical settings of criminal courts that the court of Session is given a superior and special status. Hence we think that the legislature would have thoughtfully relieved the Court of Sessions from the work of performing all the preliminary formalities which Magistrates have to do until the case is committed to the court of Session'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the case at hand, there is no provision whatsoever, under the Act of 2003 thereby empowering; the specified Court of Session (Special Court) to take cognizance of the offences referred to in Sections 135 to 139 of the Act, as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case is bring committed to it by a Magistrate. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Special Court has rightly returned the complaint to the complainant for being presented to the concerned Magistrate and hence the impugned order calls for no interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Consequently, this misc. petition is dismissed as it being devoid of merit.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2005(1)Raj446; 2005WLC(Raj)UC205',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Rajendra Singh and Party',
		'sub' => 'Criminal;Electricity',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '750427'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
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

LAW: Section 482 Cr, Section 135, the Electricity Act, Section 154, Section 155 of the Act, Section 153 of the Act, Section 193, the Scheduled Castes, Section 193

PERSON: K.C. Sharma, Heard Counsel, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam, Sawaimadhopur, Moly, Anr

NORP: J.1

ORG: Engineer, The Special Court, the Special Court, Special Court, a Court of Session, Special Court, a Court of Session, Magistrate, the Apex Court, Special Court, the Court of Session, Magistrate, Court of Session, Magistrate, Court, the Court of Sessions, Magistrates, Court of Session, Magistrate, the Special Court, Magistrate

GPE: Gangapur City, P.C., Sections, Sections, P.C., Kerala, P.C., Sections

DATE: 2003, 1973, 1989, 1989, 2003

CARDINAL: 135, 139, 1, 2, 135, 139, 135, 139, Session'.5, 135, 139