Rajbala (Smt.) Vs. State and anr. Semantic Analysis

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Rajbala (Smt.) Vs. State and anr.

Decided On : Jan-20-2005

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' => 'Rajbala (Smt.) Vs. State and anr. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 439(2',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 376',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 164 Cr'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Harbans Lal',
			(int) 1 => 'J.1',
			(int) 2 => 'Khetri',
			(int) 3 => 'Rajbala',
			(int) 4 => 'Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Cr',
			(int) 1 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 2 => 'F.I.R.'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '7.7.2004',
			(int) 1 => '2',
			(int) 2 => '354',
			(int) 3 => '323',
			(int) 4 => '341',
			(int) 5 => '324',
			(int) 6 => '511',
			(int) 7 => '2',
			(int) 8 => 'about 8.00',
			(int) 9 => '1).The',
			(int) 10 => 'one',
			(int) 11 => '534',
			(int) 12 => '2',
			(int) 13 => '326'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '26.6.2004',
			(int) 1 => 'a period of',
			(int) 2 => '7 days',
			(int) 3 => '1988',
			(int) 4 => '1988'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 1 => 'State',
			(int) 2 => 'the Apex Court',
			(int) 3 => 'Court',
			(int) 4 => 'The Apex Court',
			(int) 5 => 'Maharashtra (AIR 1993 SC',
			(int) 6 => 'the Apex Court',
			(int) 7 => 'Court',
			(int) 8 => 'Gheesyaand Ors',
			(int) 9 => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			(int) 10 => 'RCC'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '750606',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 439(2)',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Crimi. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 3443 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Rajbala (Smt.)',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajbala (Smt.) Vs. State and anr.',
			'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.  -  4. It is now well settled by a catena of case of the Apex Court as well as of this Court that the grounds for cancellation of bail are distinct from the considerations fro grant of bail. 5. After a careful consideration of the submissions in the light of the facts of the case and the well settled law governing the cancellation of bail, I am clearly of the view that no case for cancellation of bail is made out and the ground on which the bail is sought to be cancelled is not legally tenable for cancellation of bail.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Gheesyaand Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Dharamveer Tholia, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor and; Praveen Balwada, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-01-20',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Harbans Lal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Harbans Lal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the order dated 7.7.2004 granting bail to non-petitioner No. 2 Om Prakash by the learned Sessions Judge Khetri in F.I.R. No. 165/2004 PS Buhana for the offences under Section 376, 354, 323, 341, 324 and 511 1PC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the aforesaid criminal case came to be registered on the basis of a Parcha Bayan of Smt. Rajbala, the prosecutrix alleging rape with her by accused-non-petitioner No. 2 at about 8.00 A.M. on 26.6.2004 when she was cutting green grass in her filed. The main and sole ground for cancellation of bail is that the bail was granted within a period of 7 days from the date of the arrest of the accused without taking into consideration the relevant 'facts of the case and the entire material including the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. I have heard at length learned counsel for the parties and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have also perused the relevant documents placed before me as also the authorities cited at the bar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is now well settled by a catena of case of the Apex Court as well as of this Court that the grounds for cancellation of bail are distinct from the considerations fro grant of bail. The bail once granted cannot and ought not to be normally cancelled in a mechanical manner unless there are cogent and overwhelming facts and circumstances on record to do so. The Apex Court has laid down some of the grounds for cancellation of bail in the case of Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1993 SC 1).The petitioner has neither pleaded nor proved any one or more of the grounds laid down in the aforesaid case by the Apex Court for cancellation of bail. This Court has also held in the case of Gheesyaand Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan (1988 RCC 534) = (RLW 1988 (2) Raj. 326), that the bail should not be cancelled merely because a graver offence is found to have been committed as a result of investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After a careful consideration of the submissions in the light of the facts of the case and the well settled law governing the cancellation of bail, I am clearly of the view that no case for cancellation of bail is made out and the ground on which the bail is sought to be cancelled is not legally tenable for cancellation of bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Consequently, this petition being devoid of merit and substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2005(1)Raj475; 2005WLC(Raj)UC158',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '750606'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajbala (Smt.) Vs. State and anr. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 439(2',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 376',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 164 Cr'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Harbans Lal',
		(int) 1 => 'J.1',
		(int) 2 => 'Khetri',
		(int) 3 => 'Rajbala',
		(int) 4 => 'Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Cr',
		(int) 1 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 2 => 'F.I.R.'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '7.7.2004',
		(int) 1 => '2',
		(int) 2 => '354',
		(int) 3 => '323',
		(int) 4 => '341',
		(int) 5 => '324',
		(int) 6 => '511',
		(int) 7 => '2',
		(int) 8 => 'about 8.00',
		(int) 9 => '1).The',
		(int) 10 => 'one',
		(int) 11 => '534',
		(int) 12 => '2',
		(int) 13 => '326'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '26.6.2004',
		(int) 1 => 'a period of',
		(int) 2 => '7 days',
		(int) 3 => '1988',
		(int) 4 => '1988'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 1 => 'State',
		(int) 2 => 'the Apex Court',
		(int) 3 => 'Court',
		(int) 4 => 'The Apex Court',
		(int) 5 => 'Maharashtra (AIR 1993 SC',
		(int) 6 => 'the Apex Court',
		(int) 7 => 'Court',
		(int) 8 => 'Gheesyaand Ors',
		(int) 9 => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		(int) 10 => 'RCC'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '750606',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 439(2)',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Crimi. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 3443 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Rajbala (Smt.)',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajbala (Smt.) Vs. State and anr.',
		'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.  -  4. It is now well settled by a catena of case of the Apex Court as well as of this Court that the grounds for cancellation of bail are distinct from the considerations fro grant of bail. 5. After a careful consideration of the submissions in the light of the facts of the case and the well settled law governing the cancellation of bail, I am clearly of the view that no case for cancellation of bail is made out and the ground on which the bail is sought to be cancelled is not legally tenable for cancellation of bail.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Gheesyaand Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Dharamveer Tholia, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor and; Praveen Balwada, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-01-20',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Harbans Lal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Harbans Lal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the order dated 7.7.2004 granting bail to non-petitioner No. 2 Om Prakash by the learned Sessions Judge Khetri in F.I.R. No. 165/2004 PS Buhana for the offences under Section 376, 354, 323, 341, 324 and 511 1PC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the aforesaid criminal case came to be registered on the basis of a Parcha Bayan of Smt. Rajbala, the prosecutrix alleging rape with her by accused-non-petitioner No. 2 at about 8.00 A.M. on 26.6.2004 when she was cutting green grass in her filed. The main and sole ground for cancellation of bail is that the bail was granted within a period of 7 days from the date of the arrest of the accused without taking into consideration the relevant 'facts of the case and the entire material including the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. I have heard at length learned counsel for the parties and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have also perused the relevant documents placed before me as also the authorities cited at the bar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is now well settled by a catena of case of the Apex Court as well as of this Court that the grounds for cancellation of bail are distinct from the considerations fro grant of bail. The bail once granted cannot and ought not to be normally cancelled in a mechanical manner unless there are cogent and overwhelming facts and circumstances on record to do so. The Apex Court has laid down some of the grounds for cancellation of bail in the case of Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1993 SC 1).The petitioner has neither pleaded nor proved any one or more of the grounds laid down in the aforesaid case by the Apex Court for cancellation of bail. This Court has also held in the case of Gheesyaand Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan (1988 RCC 534) = (RLW 1988 (2) Raj. 326), that the bail should not be cancelled merely because a graver offence is found to have been committed as a result of investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After a careful consideration of the submissions in the light of the facts of the case and the well settled law governing the cancellation of bail, I am clearly of the view that no case for cancellation of bail is made out and the ground on which the bail is sought to be cancelled is not legally tenable for cancellation of bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Consequently, this petition being devoid of merit and substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2005(1)Raj475; 2005WLC(Raj)UC158',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '750606'
)
$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' => 'Rajbala (Smt.) Vs. State and anr. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 439(2',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 376',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 164 Cr'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Harbans Lal',
			(int) 1 => 'J.1',
			(int) 2 => 'Khetri',
			(int) 3 => 'Rajbala',
			(int) 4 => 'Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Cr',
			(int) 1 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 2 => 'F.I.R.'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '7.7.2004',
			(int) 1 => '2',
			(int) 2 => '354',
			(int) 3 => '323',
			(int) 4 => '341',
			(int) 5 => '324',
			(int) 6 => '511',
			(int) 7 => '2',
			(int) 8 => 'about 8.00',
			(int) 9 => '1).The',
			(int) 10 => 'one',
			(int) 11 => '534',
			(int) 12 => '2',
			(int) 13 => '326'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '26.6.2004',
			(int) 1 => 'a period of',
			(int) 2 => '7 days',
			(int) 3 => '1988',
			(int) 4 => '1988'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 1 => 'State',
			(int) 2 => 'the Apex Court',
			(int) 3 => 'Court',
			(int) 4 => 'The Apex Court',
			(int) 5 => 'Maharashtra (AIR 1993 SC',
			(int) 6 => 'the Apex Court',
			(int) 7 => 'Court',
			(int) 8 => 'Gheesyaand Ors',
			(int) 9 => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			(int) 10 => 'RCC'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '750606',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 439(2)',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Crimi. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 3443 of 2004',
			'appellant' => 'Rajbala (Smt.)',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajbala (Smt.) Vs. State and anr.',
			'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.  -  4. It is now well settled by a catena of case of the Apex Court as well as of this Court that the grounds for cancellation of bail are distinct from the considerations fro grant of bail. 5. After a careful consideration of the submissions in the light of the facts of the case and the well settled law governing the cancellation of bail, I am clearly of the view that no case for cancellation of bail is made out and the ground on which the bail is sought to be cancelled is not legally tenable for cancellation of bail.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Gheesyaand Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Dharamveer Tholia, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor and; Praveen Balwada, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-01-20',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Harbans Lal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Harbans Lal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the order dated 7.7.2004 granting bail to non-petitioner No. 2 Om Prakash by the learned Sessions Judge Khetri in F.I.R. No. 165/2004 PS Buhana for the offences under Section 376, 354, 323, 341, 324 and 511 1PC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the aforesaid criminal case came to be registered on the basis of a Parcha Bayan of Smt. Rajbala, the prosecutrix alleging rape with her by accused-non-petitioner No. 2 at about 8.00 A.M. on 26.6.2004 when she was cutting green grass in her filed. The main and sole ground for cancellation of bail is that the bail was granted within a period of 7 days from the date of the arrest of the accused without taking into consideration the relevant 'facts of the case and the entire material including the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. I have heard at length learned counsel for the parties and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have also perused the relevant documents placed before me as also the authorities cited at the bar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is now well settled by a catena of case of the Apex Court as well as of this Court that the grounds for cancellation of bail are distinct from the considerations fro grant of bail. The bail once granted cannot and ought not to be normally cancelled in a mechanical manner unless there are cogent and overwhelming facts and circumstances on record to do so. The Apex Court has laid down some of the grounds for cancellation of bail in the case of Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1993 SC 1).The petitioner has neither pleaded nor proved any one or more of the grounds laid down in the aforesaid case by the Apex Court for cancellation of bail. This Court has also held in the case of Gheesyaand Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan (1988 RCC 534) = (RLW 1988 (2) Raj. 326), that the bail should not be cancelled merely because a graver offence is found to have been committed as a result of investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After a careful consideration of the submissions in the light of the facts of the case and the well settled law governing the cancellation of bail, I am clearly of the view that no case for cancellation of bail is made out and the ground on which the bail is sought to be cancelled is not legally tenable for cancellation of bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Consequently, this petition being devoid of merit and substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2005(1)Raj475; 2005WLC(Raj)UC158',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '750606'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajbala (Smt.) Vs. State and anr. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 439(2',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 376',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 164 Cr'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Harbans Lal',
		(int) 1 => 'J.1',
		(int) 2 => 'Khetri',
		(int) 3 => 'Rajbala',
		(int) 4 => 'Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Cr',
		(int) 1 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 2 => 'F.I.R.'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '7.7.2004',
		(int) 1 => '2',
		(int) 2 => '354',
		(int) 3 => '323',
		(int) 4 => '341',
		(int) 5 => '324',
		(int) 6 => '511',
		(int) 7 => '2',
		(int) 8 => 'about 8.00',
		(int) 9 => '1).The',
		(int) 10 => 'one',
		(int) 11 => '534',
		(int) 12 => '2',
		(int) 13 => '326'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '26.6.2004',
		(int) 1 => 'a period of',
		(int) 2 => '7 days',
		(int) 3 => '1988',
		(int) 4 => '1988'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 1 => 'State',
		(int) 2 => 'the Apex Court',
		(int) 3 => 'Court',
		(int) 4 => 'The Apex Court',
		(int) 5 => 'Maharashtra (AIR 1993 SC',
		(int) 6 => 'the Apex Court',
		(int) 7 => 'Court',
		(int) 8 => 'Gheesyaand Ors',
		(int) 9 => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		(int) 10 => 'RCC'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '750606',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 439(2)',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Crimi. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 3443 of 2004',
		'appellant' => 'Rajbala (Smt.)',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajbala (Smt.) Vs. State and anr.',
		'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.  -  4. It is now well settled by a catena of case of the Apex Court as well as of this Court that the grounds for cancellation of bail are distinct from the considerations fro grant of bail. 5. After a careful consideration of the submissions in the light of the facts of the case and the well settled law governing the cancellation of bail, I am clearly of the view that no case for cancellation of bail is made out and the ground on which the bail is sought to be cancelled is not legally tenable for cancellation of bail.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Gheesyaand Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Dharamveer Tholia, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor and; Praveen Balwada, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-01-20',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Harbans Lal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Harbans Lal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the order dated 7.7.2004 granting bail to non-petitioner No. 2 Om Prakash by the learned Sessions Judge Khetri in F.I.R. No. 165/2004 PS Buhana for the offences under Section 376, 354, 323, 341, 324 and 511 1PC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the aforesaid criminal case came to be registered on the basis of a Parcha Bayan of Smt. Rajbala, the prosecutrix alleging rape with her by accused-non-petitioner No. 2 at about 8.00 A.M. on 26.6.2004 when she was cutting green grass in her filed. The main and sole ground for cancellation of bail is that the bail was granted within a period of 7 days from the date of the arrest of the accused without taking into consideration the relevant 'facts of the case and the entire material including the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. I have heard at length learned counsel for the parties and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have also perused the relevant documents placed before me as also the authorities cited at the bar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is now well settled by a catena of case of the Apex Court as well as of this Court that the grounds for cancellation of bail are distinct from the considerations fro grant of bail. The bail once granted cannot and ought not to be normally cancelled in a mechanical manner unless there are cogent and overwhelming facts and circumstances on record to do so. The Apex Court has laid down some of the grounds for cancellation of bail in the case of Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1993 SC 1).The petitioner has neither pleaded nor proved any one or more of the grounds laid down in the aforesaid case by the Apex Court for cancellation of bail. This Court has also held in the case of Gheesyaand Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan (1988 RCC 534) = (RLW 1988 (2) Raj. 326), that the bail should not be cancelled merely because a graver offence is found to have been committed as a result of investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After a careful consideration of the submissions in the light of the facts of the case and the well settled law governing the cancellation of bail, I am clearly of the view that no case for cancellation of bail is made out and the ground on which the bail is sought to be cancelled is not legally tenable for cancellation of bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Consequently, this petition being devoid of merit and substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2005(1)Raj475; 2005WLC(Raj)UC158',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '750606'
)
$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 439(2, Section 376, Section 164 Cr

PERSON: Harbans Lal, J.1, Khetri, Rajbala, Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of

GPE: Cr, P.C., F.I.R.

CARDINAL: 7.7.2004, 2, 354, 323, 341, 324, 511, 2, about 8.00, 1).The, one, 534, 2, 326

DATE: 26.6.2004, a period of, 7 days, 1988, 1988

ORG: Public Prosecutor, State, the Apex Court, Court, The Apex Court, Maharashtra (AIR 1993 SC, the Apex Court, Court, Gheesyaand Ors, The State of Rajasthan, RCC