UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD , BAHADURGARH DISTT JHAJJAR Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ROHTAK AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for consideration before this Court is whether a part time worker would be covered under the definition of "workman" entitling him to the benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and further if he be a workman, whether such workman as a part-time worker would be entitled to the protection of the Section 25-F of the Act.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the fact that the petitioner was a part time worker and, therefore, would not come within the definition of "workman" as provided under the Act and the respondent, therefore, not being a workman would not be entitled to protection of Section 25-F of the Act.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent-workman has cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. A. Sankaralingam, 2008 10 SCC 698., to contend that both these assertions which have been put-forth by the counsel for the petitioner stand answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment against him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 18 has held as follows :