1. The grievance made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the claim of the workman has been declined, inter alia, on the grounds. (1) that the "hospital" is not an industry as envisaged in Sec.2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , and (2) the petitioner being a part-time worker does not fall within the definition of a workman.

2. It is argued that the definition given in Sec.2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , declaring "hospital" not to be an industry has not been accepted till today by the judicial pronouncements and thus the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent-hospital is not an industry cannot be sustained. Thus, the same is liable to be set aside.

3. We have carefully gone through the definition of workman. The Industrial Disputes Act is a social welfare legislation enacted for the benefit of the workman. The definition clause has to be liberally construed to ensure that the object of the Act is attained and the workers are not forced to seek the remedy for their claims in the ordinary civil court. The latter remedy renders the very object of the industrial dispute as otiose which was to provide efficacious and speedy remedy devoid of