( 1 ) THE question referred a Division Bench of this Court has referred the following question for our consideration: "whether a part-time employee is a "workman" and whether he is entitled for all the benefits which are being extended to regular employees. "

( 2 ) FACTUAL matrix

2. 1 The appellant herein - Tourism Corporation of Gujarat Ltd ("tcgl" or "the appellant") is a Government Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent herein was appointed by the appellant Corporation as a part-time sweeper in its Junagadh Hotel for a fixed period upto December 1987. Therefore on 31st December 1987 his services came to an end. In the year 1996, the respondent raised an industrial dispute, contending that his services had been illegally terminated. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Junagadh which was registered as Reference (LCJ) No. 57 of 1996. After hearing the parties, by award dated 24th May 2001, the Labour Court directed the appellant herein to reinstate the respondent within 30 days from the date of the award.

2. 2 The appellant Corporation, therefore, filed Special Civil Application No. 8847 of 2001 before this Court challenging the award passed by the Labour Court. By judgment dated 3. 4. 2002, the learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties at length and after considering various decisions, directed the appellant Company to appoint the respondent workman as a fresh employee as per the direction issued by the Labour Court within a period of one month from the date of receiving copy of the said order. It was further directed to pay full current wages to the respondent workman with effect from the date of the award (24th May 2001) till the date of actual reinstatement within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. It is against the said decision that this Letters Patent Appeal came to be filed by the appellant Corporation.

2. 3 During the course of hearing a question arose as to whether a workman employed as a part-time employee is a "workman" and whether he is entitled to all the benefits which are being extended to regular employees. The Division Bench considered the decisions in the cases of Silver Jubilee Tailoring House and others Vs. Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments and another, 1973 II LLJ 495, Govindbhai Kanabhai Maru Vs. N. K. Desai, 1988 Labour and Industrial Cases 505 and Arun Mills Ltd. Vs. Dr. Chandraprasad C. Trivedi, 1976 GLR 291 and expressing a prima facie view that a part time employee cannot be considered as "workman" within the meaning of Industrial Disputes act, requested the learned Chief Justice to refer the matter to a Larger Bench. That is how the appeal was placed for hearing before this Bench.

( 3 ) BASED on statutory provisions

3. 1 On behalf of the appellants it is submitted that as per section 2 (s) of the Act, a "workman" only means a person appointed on full-time basis and would not include a person, who is appointed on part-time basis. According to the learned counsel for the appellant Corporation, if a part-time employee is taken to be a workman, then it would lead to administrative chaos, because a person, who is working as a part timer with different institutions/organizations would claim permanency and all other benefits at different places. It is submitted that if a person is engaged as a daily wager on part-time basis, when he is discharged from service upon the contract coming to end, it would not amount to retrenchment.

3. 2 In case of a person who works or is engaged on part-time basis, there would be a presumption, though rebuttable by the person working part time, that he is engaged in some gainful activity, either by way of self-employment or with other employer, during the rest of the day. Therefore, unless the said person establishes that he is not gainfully employed with another employer or unless the said person, though working part time, is working for substantial part of the enti