A SANKARALINGAM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.

(2.) THE writ petitioner was working as a Sweeper-cum-Water Carrier in the second respondent's office from 2. 1. 1986 on a monthly salary of Rs. 150/ -. He continued to work as such till 15. 3. 1989. He made a request to the second respondent to regularize his services. The second respondent asked him to submit an application with medical certificate. But, even after that, his services were not regularized. On the contrary, petitioner was orally informed that he was not required to work on and from 15. 3. 1989. No records were given and no notice was issued to him. So, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute praying for his reinstatement. The Industrial Tribunal dismissed his claim and therefore, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would submit that the mere fact that the petitioner was a part-time worker will not deprive him of his rights under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the definition of workman in the Act also includes a part-time workman. The fact that the petitioner has worked from 1986 to 1989 has not been denied by the second respondent; they only say that he has worked on an ad hoc basis. According to the learned counsel, even the evidence would show that the petitioner had been working as a Sweeper-cum-Water Carrier and therefore, he was entitled to all the protection under the I. D. Act. Learned counsel relied on the following decisions in support of his case:-