N NATESAN Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION CHEPAUK MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THAT even a temporary workman is a workman within the meaning of S.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is now well-established. It is unnecessary to refer to any authority on the matter.

(2.) THE only other question is whether the respondent, having been a temporary workman, would, in addition to a month's notice or one month's wages in lieu of the notice, be entitled to retrenchment compensation. THE respondent was appointed temporarily on July 10, 1956, and seem to have continued to be temporary till August 10, 1967. That was only in form for he had been in service for more than ten years.Apart from that, the Act does not appear to make distinction, especially S. 25F, between a permanent workman and a temporary workman for purposes of retrenchment compensation. That being the case, the order of the learned Judge is correct. THE appeal is dismissed. No costs.