Ramachandran Nair, J.

The question raised in the writ appeal filed by a hospital is whether the learned single Judge was right in confirming the order of the Labour Court holding that a consultant Physician employed by the appellant is a “worker” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D.Act’).

2. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant, counsel appearing for the first respondent-Medical Doctor who is the claimant before the Labour Court and the Government Pleader who, while appearing for the Labour Court, supported the case of the first respondent that the Medical Doctor is a workman within the meaning of that term contained in the I.D.Act.

3. Admittedly, the claimant in this case is a Post Graduate Doctor in General Medicine, who was employed in the appellant’s hospital on a monthly salary of Rs.8200/- in the year 1989. After leaving the service of the hospital, the Doctor filed a claim petition under Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act before the Labour Court claiming wage arrears for Sundays and holidays worked by him during 1989 to 1991, i.e, for the period prior to his leaving the service of the hospital. The ap