IMPORTANT POINT
A part-time workman would be covered within the definition in Section 2(s) of the Act and thus he would be entitled to the benefit of continuous service under section 25B and the benefit of Section 25F.

JUDGMENT

Harjit Singh Bedi, J. —

1. The facts leading to this appeal are as under:

2. The respondent-writ petitioner (hereinafter called the ‘workman’) was appointed on 2nd January 1986 as a Sweeper-cum-Water Carrier in the Office of the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., Trivandrum Road, Tirunelveli (respondent No.2 in the High Court) and herein called the “employer”, on a monthly wage of Rs.130/-. He thereafter made a request that his services be regularized but was on the contrary, informed orally that he was not required to work with effect from 15th March 1989. He thereupon sought the intervention of the appropriate Government praying for his reinstatement, but conciliation efforts having failed, the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for decision. The Tribunal in its award dated 10th September 1998 held that the claimant before it, was not a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the “Act”) as he had worked only as a part-time employee and that too on an ad-hoc basis. The Tribunal also observed that as the duty hours of the workman were only one or two hours a day for which he was paid a sum of Rs.150/- p.m., and as he was entitled to work elsewhere as well, revealed his status as such. The workman challenged the award of the Tribunal before the Madras High Court. The learned Single Judge held that the fact that the workman had worked from the years 1986-1989 and as per the oral evidence, he had worked in the office till 5' O clock had been admitted and it thus appeared that the finding that he was working only 2 hours a day was factually wrong. The learned Single Judge further held that the point for decision was not the workman’s plea for regularization but as to whether his services had been wrongly terminated ignoring the procedure for retrenchment envisaged under Section 25F of the Act and as such, the retrenchment itself was bad in law. The Court relied on section 2 (s) and Section 2B of the Act to hold that these two definitions were not restricted in applicability to only full time employees as the all embracing tenor of the definition took within its ambit even part time employees. The learned Single Judge accordingly quashed the award of the Tribunal and ordered the re-instatement of the workman with full back wages and left the matter of regularization of service to be considered by the employer in accordance with law. This judgment was confirmed in appeal by the Division Bench. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the employer is in appeal.

3. Shri Atul Nanda, the learned counsel for the appellant has first and foremost argued that the finding of fact arrived at by the High Court as to the status of the workman was incorrect inasmuch as that in the application filed by the respondent on 30th May 1989 praying that his service be regularized, he had identified himself as a part-time Sweeper-cum-Water Carrier and in this background to hold that he was working on full-time basis was contrary to the record. It has also been pointed that as per application dated 23rd September 1991 addressed to the appellant by the President of the District Committee for legal aid, the workman had been employed only as a part time Sweeper. It has further been submitted that the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of Section 25 F of the Act as he was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) thereof as in common understanding, a day must include a full day’s work and not a part time employment. He has in this connection referred us Shankar Balaji Waje vs. State of Maharashtra,1 1962 (Suppl.) (1) SCR 249 in which the scope of Section 79 of the Factories Act was under consideration to plead that as this provision was analogous to Section 25 B of the Act in so far as the requirement of 240 days of employment was concerned, the workman was not entitled to any relief. He has also pointed out that this Court in