- (1.) The only issue raised by the petitioning State in this labour matter is whether the respondent-workman, working as Waterman on part time basis, is a workman by definition under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"),. Further, even if it is assumed that there is any violation of the Act the respondent-workman should at best be compensated monetarily and not allowed reinstatement as ordered by the Labour Court vide its impugned award dated 3.3.2011 (Annexure P-3). The Labour Court has ordered reinstatement of the workman with 10% backwages and full back-wages for the period 1.3.2005 to 28.2.2006. The respondentworkman was found to have completed 240 days of service in the preceding calendar year from the date of termination and there was noncompliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. The period of service was from 14.8.2003 to 1.3.2006. The industrial reference was registered on 22.1.2008, on a reference being made by the appropriate government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act on 7.1.2008. The Management claimed that the workman served for 3 -1/2 hours every day on part time basis. In the demand notice/claim statement, the workman did not say that he has been appointed on part time basis. From the cross-examination off MW-1, the Labour Court has observed that no justification has been given to the effect that the workman was not appointed on part time basis. No rejoinder to the written statement has been filed to controvert the plea that the claimant had been appointed on part time basis. The Labour Court has found as a matter of fact that this was a case of part time employment. The immediate question then arose whether a part time employee would fall within the definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Act.
(2.) Ms.Kirti Singh, learned DAG, Haryana submits that a part time employee would not fall within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act, and therefore, the Labour Court was not right in ordering reinstatement for want of being clothed with industrial rights. She further submits that the services of workman were disengaged on account of sanction not being received from the Government to continue payment for the post. She further submits that back salary has been granted without there being a prayer for it. Photocopies of Muster Rolls have been produced for the first time as Annexure P- 4 to the writ petition. I have perused the same with her able assistance and do not find anything in it to detract from the award of reinstatement granted by the Labour Court and reasons which propelled it. It is well settled law that no new record is open to be seen by the writ court in supervisory jurisdiction which was not produced before the Labour Court. New pleas cannot be allowed to be entertained by this Court at this stage. In any case, the muster rolls now produced are not determinative of the issues since I am not inclined to appreciate the submission of the Management that the workman was engaged on part time basis or for that reason he had no industrial rights as part time employees are also workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act. I would rely on Devinder Singh v. Municipal Council, Sanaur (Civil Appeal No.3190 of 2011 decided on 11.4.2011) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- "14. It is apposite to observe that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only a person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman."
(3.) I would also rely on the decision rendered in Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. A. Sankaralingam, 2009 AIR(SC) 309 in the same strain. I do not find any merit in this writ petition nor find any question of law which requires determination by admission of the matter. This writ petition is dismissed in limine. Nothing said in this order should be taken as a final determination on the question of quantum of back-wages which are left open and in case such a challenge is brought that would be decided on merits without referring to this order. Ordered accordingly.;