RAIMA ABDULLA SATTAR Vs. NAGALPAR GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr. Anjaria, learned advocate waives service of Rule. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioner has assailed the award and order dated 17. 8. 2004 rejecting his Reference on account of he being considered as not workman so as to invoke the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It appears that petitioner was engaged to do certain type of works enumerated in the order itself but as he was said to be a part timer, his dispute was not treated to be a dispute by workman as he was not treated as workman.

(3.) SHRI Nikhil Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the award deserves to be quashed and set aside as the reasoning is per-se not tenable for rejecting the Reference. He relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. VS. A. SANKARLINGAN reported in 2008 (13) Scale pg. 292 and submits that looking to this ratio, part timer cannot be said to be not covered by definition under Section 2 (s) of the I. D. Act, 1947.