MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. FAILY RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent petitioner was appointed as Mali to look after the garden of the Design, Development and Research Centre of the Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation for two to three hours everyday against a lump sum monthly payment of Rs. 100. The Annexure R/1 filed with the reply by the appellants-non- petitioners, shows that he was so appointed on temporary basis with effect from August 24, 1985. Services of the respondent continued till sometime in the year 1988. Thereafter he was discontinued. He preferred a writ against the appellant non- petitioners and the learned single Judge by his order dated April 15, 1991 accepted the writ petition and directed the respondents- appellants to allow the petitioner to continue in service, and his services shall be treated as continuous. The petitioner was directed to move before the Labour Court/industrial Tribunal, for the computation of the back wages. The non-petitioners were also given freedom to raise dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, on the point whether the petitioner remained in gainful employment during the intervening period or not? The petitioner. has also been directed to be paid minimum basic salary and other allowances. Against this order of the learned single Judge, this special appeal has been preferred. We have heard the arguments of both the sides.

(2.) THE appellants-non-petitioners are the Managing Director and the Senior Manager of the Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation. Since they are incharge of the management of the Corporation, therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petition was not maintainable because the respondent-petitioner had impleaded them as non-petitioner and had not impleaded the Rajasthan Small Scale Industries Corporation as such. The Corporation as such is not prejudiced in any manner by the alleged misconstitution of the petition because the Corporation is an inanimated entity and its management is obviously run and looked after by the present appellants. In the absence of any substantial prejudice, we are of the view that justice cannot be denied merely on the basis of technical objections specially where the petitioner is a small low paid Mali.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the respondent petitioner was only a part time employee and therefore, he cannot be said to be a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act. The essential condition of a person being a workman within the term of definition given in the Industrial Disputes Act is that he should be 'employed' to do the work in the industry of his employer and that there should be the relationship between the employer and him as between master and servant. There is no room to incorporate into it the idea that only a permanent employee can be construed to be a workman. There is no room to think that a casual workman does not come within the scope of the definition of 'workman'. If jural relationship exists, it does not matter whether the employment is part-time or casual or part-time worker must be a regular worker. Here in this case, the petitioner respondent has been engaged as mali to look after the garden of the Corporation for two to three hours every day on the lump sum of Rs. 100 per month. Obviously, the relationship between him and the appellant is as between servant and master. He is under obligation to work for fixed hours everyday, therefore, jural relationship of master and servant does exist between the appellant and the respondent.