VINEET KOTHARI - (1.) HEARD learned counsels.
(2.) The workman has filed the present writ petition against the award dated 2/1/1998 in Industrial Dispute Case No. 10/1995 decided by Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara holding that the termination of the workman - Kan Singh from 18/11/1991 was valid and legal since the workman was employed in the respondent Ayurved Department only as part time workman for serving water to the visitors @ Rs. 5/ - per day and without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, his services were terminated on 18/11/1991, though he was initially appointed on 5/6/1984 and he remained there for about seven years.
(3.) THE only contention which falls for consideration in the present case is as to whether the part timer like the present petitioner is a workman or not. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Yashwant Singh Yadav v/s State of Rajasthan & ors. - RLR 1989(1) 156 held that even part time employee is a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference: - 17. We are unable to find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by a learned Single Judge in the aforesaid decision. The majority of the High Courts of the country as discussed above have taken the view that even a part time employee is a workman within the definition of the 'workman' as given in S. 2(s) of the Act. In our opinion, the definition of workman as given in S. 2(s) of the Act is comprehensive and wide enough to include even a part time employee. We are of the considered opinion that even a part time employee is covered by the definition of 'workman' as given in S. 2(s) of the Act. With all respects, we are unable to agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of the A.P. High Court. 18. In the instant case, no doubt the petitioner was appointed as a part time employee. He is a workman as defined in the Act. The termination of his service amounts to retrenchment and the retrenchment was made in violation of the provisions of S. 25 -F of the Act. He is, therefore, entitled to reinstatement.;