A part-time employee cannot be equated with a full-time employee for the purpose of regularization, and the concept of exclusive employment is crucial for a regular employee.

Permod Kohli, J.

1. The petitioner was appointed as part-time Water- carrier on 1.12.1997 in the Government Primary School, Gothra (Bhiwani) by the order of the then Block Education Officer, Charkhi Dadri-I vide order of the same date on being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The petitioner is seeking regularization on the basis of the government policy framed in the year 1980 as amended vide notification dated 30.12.1998 and Feb. 25, 1999. It is stated that petitioner has rendered more than ten years of service. It is also stated that some persons junior to them have been regularized. Names of such persons i.e. Sunder Singh and Bajrang Kumar have been indicated in paragraph 8 of the writ petition. It is stated that these two persons were appointed as part-time Class-IV employees on 5.11.98 and 10.7.2000, respectively and their services have been regularized on 2.8.2002 and 19.11.2003, respectively, whereas the claim of the petitioner for regularization has not been considered despite representation in this regard.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. In so far as the right of part time employee is concerned, the issue has been settled by a Gobind v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar and another, CWP No. 4660 of 1999, wherein following observations have been made :-

"In view of the facts mentioned above, we can safely say that a part time worker, who works only for a part of the day, will not be in a position to complete even fictional year as envisaged under Section 25-B of the I.D. Act i.e. 240 days in 12 months preceding the relevant date. Not only this, we feel that it will be very difficult to give any benefit to a part time worker under Chapter V-A and V-B of the I.D. act. As in the present case, the petitioner was working only for two hours in a day with the respondent- employer, there is no restriction and he can work with any number of employee can be asked to work only for 48 hours in a week i.e. 8/9 hours in day. For the sake of discussion, if we presume that a part time worker, who works only for two hours with one employer, after working with four employers, engaged himself with the 5th and 6th employer for the work and if 5th and 6th employers terminate his service, it will not be possible for the Labour Court to reinstate him in service because with those employers, he was working beyond the period prescribed. Furthermore, as per provisions of Factories Act and 1950 rules, an employee is entitled to get extra wages if he works beyond the number of hours prescribed in a day. When a part time worker engages himself beyond the period of 8/9 hours in a day, from that employer at what rate he will get the wages, whether at the normal rate or at the rate which is fixed for working over time. We have also noticed that a part time worker can get employment with as many number of employers as he wishes to. He can even work with those employers who are competing with each other. In the case of appointment of a part time worker, concept of exclusive employment, which is the most important ingredient in case of a regular employee, is completely missing.

In view of facts mentioned above, we concluded that a part time worker would fall within the definition of a workman as postulated under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. However nature of his employment will be that of contractual employee and employer be at liberty to terminate him and his termination would not entitle him to get any benefit under the provisions of Chapter V-A and V-B of the I.D. Act. It is further clarified that to enforce rights and obligations arising under contract of employment, may be in writing or oral, the part time worker may invoke the provisions of I.D. Act other than contained in Chapter V-A and V-B of the Act.

Question posed is answered in above mentioned manner.

This writ petition stands dismissed."

4. In view of the dictum of aforesaid judgment a part-time employee cannot be equated with full time employe