The definition of 'workman' should be liberally construed to ensure the benefit of the workers, and part-time workmen fall within the definition of 'workman'.

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 lengthy tiring procedure of civil courts with all the trappings of proverbial technicalities of the Civil Procedure Code, to illiterate or semi-literate industrial worker.

4. A plain reading of the definition of "workman" does not exclude the part-time workmen form the definition of "workman". Such exclusion cannot be read into it ipso facto. except if it is expressly provided or implied that no other in- terpretation is possible, which is not the case in the case in hand. We find support for our view from the observations made by the Supreme Court in Birdhichand Sharma V/s. First Civil Judge, (1961-II-LLJ- 86), wherein the Supreme Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, found that the workers even doing the job at their home are still workmen. Thus, we are of the considered view that a part-time workman shall fall within the definition of "workman" and the finding returned by the Labour Court that a part-time worker is not a workman, cannot be sustained. We may hasten to add that nothing has been pointed out that on any principle of equity, justice, good conscience or the technical interpretation of the definition of workman that a part-time workman cannot be termed as a workman is unknown to the industrial world.

5. In view of the observations made above, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded to the Industrial Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law within six months. The parties are directed to appear before the Industrial Tribunal on October 30, 1996. No order as to costs.