Holding

A part‑time employee who works under the employer’s control is a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) and is entitled to the benefits of Sections 258 and 25F.

Summary

The respondent was appointed as a sweeper‑cum‑water carrier on a monthly wage in 1986 and worked daily until about 5 p.m., effectively on a full‑time basis despite being described as part‑time. His services were terminated in March 1989 and he sought regularisation and protection under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal held he was not a "workman" because he was part‑time, but the Madras High Court (single and division benches) reversed that finding, holding he was a workman and that his retrenchment violated Sections 258 and 25F. The employer appealed to the Supreme Court, which examined the definition of "workman" in Section 2(s) and the scope of continuous service, concluding that a part‑time employee who works under the employer’s control falls within the definition and is entitled to the benefits of Sections 258 and 25F. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a part‑time employee qualifies as a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether such a workman is entitled to the protection of continuous service under Section 258 and retrenchment benefits under Section 25F.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 258, s. 25F, s. 2(s)

Subjects

Industrial Disputes Actworkman definitionpart‑time employeecontinuous serviceretrenchment protectionSection 25Femployment law

Judgment

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 139 r

~1

DIV. MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. A
v.
A.SANKARALINGAM
(Civil Appeal No. 4445 of 2006)
OCTOBER 3, 2008
"'· B
[TARU_N CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, ·JJ.]

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - ss. 2(s), 258 and 25F -
Sweeper-cum-Water Carrier appointed allegedly on a part time
basis - Working till 5 p.m. in office for three years continu- c "
ously on monthly wages under control and supervision o(
employer - Whether workman u/s. 2(s) - Benefit of ss. 258
and 25F - Entitlement of- Held: Such worker is a wor~man in
terms of s. 2(s) and entitled to the benefit of ss. 258 and 25F.
Respondent was appointed with the ~ppellant on'· D
2.01.1986 as a Sweeper-cum-Water Carrier on monthly
wages. He sought regularization of services but his ser-
vices were terminated from 15.03.1989. Respondent ap-
proached the appropriate Government. On failure of con-
ciliation effort, matter was referred to Industrial Tribunal. E
The Tribunal held that as the responqent worked as a part-
time employee only for one or two hours a day on montflly
wages and he could work elsewhere also, he was not a
workman within the meaning ofs~ "2(s}'of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. The Single Judge of High Co.urt held F
that the workman had worked from 1986-1989; that.as per . -
the oral evidence, he had worked in the office till 5' O cloc.k; ·
and that the retrenchment was bad in law. It set aside the
order of the trihunal and directed that the workman be re-

' . instated with full back wages. The Division Bench upheld G
the order. Hence the appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A bare perusal of definition of 'workman'
139 H
DIV. MANAGER, NEW INDIAASSURANCE CO. LTD. 141
v. A.SANKARALINGAM.
-
• consideration of the oral evidence as well as on the
documentary record, and on admissions made in evidence
A

given categorical findings of fact that the respondent had
worked till about 5 p.m. every day and had worked con-
tinuously for more than 3 years from 2nd January 1986 to
15th March 1989. [Paras 5, 9 and 12] [151-A; 145-B; 149-C] B
CASE LAW REFERENCE
f-
2007 (13) SCALE 499 Held inapplicable. Para 8
1989 LAB l.C. 1650 Held inapplicable. Para 8
_(1974) 3 sec 498 Relied on. Para 10' c
~
1961 (3) SCR 161 Referred to. Para 11'
I.

1962 (Suppl.) (1) SCR 249 Referred to. Para 11
1997 (1) LLJ 788 Approved. Para 13
2001 LAB l.C. 2127 Approved. Para 14 D
.....
/
2001-11-LLJ 45 Approved. Para 15
I

132 (2006) DLT 192 Approved. Para 15
- 1988 Lab l.C. 505 Approved. Para 15
1990 Lab l.C. 1451 Approved. Para 15 E

CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4445
of 2006
~
From the final Judgment and Order dated 7.4.2006 of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras, in Writ Appeal No: 432 of., F
-f-
2006 and WAMP No. 922 of 2006
Atul Nanda, Rameeza Hakeem and Sandeep Bajaj (for
M/s. Law Associates & Co.) for the Appellant.
I

S. Guru Krishna Kumar and Srikala Gurukrishna Kumar G
for the Respondent.
.. .....
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.1. The facts leading to this ap_-
peal are as under: H
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. I

t

A 2. The respondent-writ petitioner (hereinafter called the
.
I

'workman') was appointed on 2nd January 1986 as a Sweeper-
cum.;.Water Carrier in the Office of the Divisional Manager, New
·India Assurance Company Ltd., Trivandrum Road, Tirunelveli
(~espondent No.2 in the High Court) and herein callee! the "em-
8 player", on a monthly wage of Rs.130/-. He thereafter made a
request that his services be regularized but was on the con-
trary, informed orally that he was not required to work with effect
from 15th March 1989. He thereupon sought the intervention of
the appropriate Government praying for his reinstatement, but
c conciliation efforts having failed, the matter was referred to the
Industrial Tribunal for decision. The Tribunal in its award dated
1Oth September 1998 held that the claimant before it, was·not a
· workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Dis-
_putes Act, 1947 (herei_nafter called the "Act") as he had worked ~
only as a part-time employee and that too on an ad-hoc basis .
0
. Th~ Tribunal also observed that as the duty hours of the work-
maQ were only one or two hours a day for which he was paid a
sum ofRs.150/-p.m., and as he was entitled to work elsewhere
,, as well, revealed his status as such.,The workman challenged
the award of the Tribunal before the Madras High Court. The
E_ learned Single Judge held that the fact that the workman had
- worked from the years 1986-1989 and as per the oral evidence,
he had worked in the office till 5' O clock had been admitted
and itthusappeared that the finding that he was working only 2
hours a day was factually wrong. The learned SingleJ~dgejur-
F ther held that the point for decision was not the workman's plea ..
-'¥·
lor regularization but as to whether his services had been wrongly
.. _, · 4ennmated ign9ring the pr,acedure for retrerichment envisaged
~ under Section 25F -of the Act and as such, the retrenchment
, . itself was bad in law. The Court relied on section 2 (s) and Sec-
G tion 2B of the Act to- hold tflat these two definiti.ons were not
restricted in applicability to only full time employees as the all
embracing tenor of the definition took with~in its ambit even part
time .employees. The learned Single Judge accordingly
quash_ed the award of the Tribunal and ordered the re-instate-
H· -ment of the workman with foll back wages and left the matter of
.::.....

. ~- -
DIV. MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 143
v. A.SANKARALINGAM [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
-"\
regularization of service to be considered by the employer in, A
accordance with law. This judgment was confirmed in appeal
by the Division Bench. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the
learned Single Judg~, the employer is in appeal.
3. Shri Atul Nanda, the learned coun~el for the appellant
has first and foremost argued that the finding of fact arrived at B
+ by the High Court as to the status of the workman was incorrect
inasmuch as that in the application filed by the respondent on
. 30th May 1989 praying that his service be regularized, he had
identified himself as a part-time Sweeper-cum-Water Carrier
and in this background to hold that he was working on full-time c
basis was contrary to the record. It has also been pointed that
as per application dated 23rd September 1991 addressed to
the appellant by the President of the District Committee for le-
gal aid, the workman had been employed only as a part time
Sweeper. It has further been submitted that the respondent was D
not entitled to the benefit of Section 25 F of the Act as he was
I
not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) thereof as in
common understanding, a day must include a full day's work
and not a part time employment. He has in this connection re-
ferred us Shankar Balaji Waje vs. State of Maharashtra 1962 E
(Suppl.) (1) SCR 249 in which the scope of Section 79 of the
Factories Act was under consideration to plead that as this pro-
vision was analogous to Section 25 B of the Act in so far as the
requirement of 240 days of employment was concerned, the
..ii.
workman was not entitled to any relief. He has also pointed out F
i'
that this Court in Uttaranchal Forest Hospital Trust vs. Dinesh
Kumar (2007) 13 SCALE 499 and in Ram Lakhan Singh vs.
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh 1989 Labour In-
dustrial Cases 1650, had considered the status of a part-time
Sweeper, (as in the present case) and had held that such an
.. employee could not claim the benefit of Section 25 F of the Act.
4. As against this Mr. S.Guru Krishna Kumar, the learned
G

counsel for the workman has submitted that the reference made
to the Industrial Tribunal did not raise a question as to the part-
time or full time employment of the workman and the learned H
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

f--
A Single Ju(jge and the Division Bench having both held on facts
in his favour, no interference was called for in this appeal. He
has also urged that Section 2(s) which defined a "workman",
and Section 258 which talked of 'continuous service' did nof
make any distinction between a part-time and full time employee
B and if the Legislature intended to draw a distinction between
the two categories, the definition would have been in different
and positive terms. The learned counsel has also pointed out
that this Court in Shri Birdichand Sharma vs. First Civil Judge,
Nagpur & Ors. 1961 (3) SCR 161 and in Silver Jubilee Tai/or-
e ing House & Ors. vs. Chief Inspector of Shops & Establish-
ments & Anr. (1974) 3 sec· 498, had conclusively held that
there was absolutely no distinction between a full time and part-
-- time employee and that a workman who was.working part time
would not lose his status as a workman if he was employed with
more than one employer. It has also been submitted that pre-
0
ponderance of judicial opinion of various High Courts was in
favour of the above propositton of law and has cited:
(a) Govind Bhai vs N.K. Desai (Gujarat High Court )
1988 Lab l.C. 505 (para 6)
E (b) Yashwant Sinha Yadav vs. State of Rajasthan
(Rajathan High Court) 1990 Lab l.C. 1451 (para 9
to 15)
(c) Rajaram Rokde & Bros. vs. Shriram (Bombay High
Court) 1977 Lab l.C. 1594 (following the decision in ..
F Silver Jubilee case supra - paras 2 & 5)
(d) Dr. P.N. Gulati vs. Labour Court, Gorakhpur (Allahabad
High Court) 1977 Lab 1.c-. 1088
(e) Simla Devi vs Presiding Officer 1997 (1) LLJ 788 ~-
(f) G.M. Telecom, Nagpur vs. Naresh Brijlal Charote &
anr. 2001 LAB l.C. 2127 Bombay High Court (at
para 11)
(g) Coal India vs. P.O. Labour Court 2001-11-LLJ 45 Delhi
H High Court (pat paras 7 and 8)
DIV. MANAGER, NEW INDIA AS.SU RANCE CO. LTD. 145
v. A.SANKARALINGAM [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
(h) Kailash Chand Saigal vs.Om Prakash & Ors.132 A
(2006) DLT 192 Delhi High Court (at paras 5 & 6 )"
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
gone through the record. It will _be seen that the Single Bench
arid the Division Bench of the High Court have both on a con-
sideration of the oral evidence as well as on the documentary B
record, and on admissions made in evidence given categori-
+ cal findings of fact that the respondent had worked till about 5
p.m. every day but even otherwise we are of the opinion in the
light of the various decisions of the. High Courts and the Su-
preme Court, that a part time employee would be a workman C
as understood in Section 2(s) thereof and would have the ben-
efit of Section 25F of the Act. It is also relevant that the refer-
ence made to the Industrial Tribunal was as under:
"Whether the claim of Sri A. Sankaralingam that he was
0
an employee of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., from 2.1.86
to 15.3.89 as a Sweeper cum Water Carrier is correct. If
so, whether the .action of the management of New India -
Assurance Co. Ltd."·lft, terminating his services w.e.f.
15.3.89 is justified? What relief, if any, to Sri A. E
Sankaralingam entitled to?" ·

6. From-a perusal of the reference, it is evjdentthatthe ques-
tion as to the status of the workman as a full time or part time .
employee was not in issue and the only dispute was as to whether
_. he was a workman with the appellant employer or not.As alr~ady F
~ obsezy~d above, it has not been disputed before us that the work-
man had indeed been employed but the dispute· is only withre~
a
gard to his status as full time or a part time employee.
7. In the light of the above decisions, the question for con-
sideration; which has been hotly debated, is the status of a part· G
time employee and as to whether such an employee falls within
the definition of "workman". Section 2 (s) of the Act deals with
the definition of "workman" whereas section 25B talks about
"continuous service". Both these provisions are r~produced
below: H
. 146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A "Sec.2(s) "workman" means any person (including an r
apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual,
un_skilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or
supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of
employment be expressed or implied, and for the purposes
B of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial
dispute, includes any such person who has been
dismissed, discharged, or retrenched in connection with,
I
or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal,
discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but
c does not include any such person -
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950),
or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act,
\

1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer
D
or other employee of a prison; or
\
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or 'y
administrative capacity; or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity,
E draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred
rupees per niensem or exercises, either by the natur? .
of the duties attached to the office or by reason of .,
the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a
managerial nature."
F
Sec.25-8. Definition of continuous service.- For the
. purposes of this Chapter,_
'
"'
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for
a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
G including service which may be interrupted on account of
sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work " ·?<(

~
which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within
H
DIV. MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 147
v. A.SANKARALINGAM [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
·-"
1
the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six A
mont'is, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service
under an employe~ -
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a
period of twelve calendar months preceding the date
with reference to which calculation is to be made, 8
has actually worked under the employer for not less
-t than -
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a
workman employed below ground in a mine; c
and ·

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
(b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a
period of six calendar months preceding the date
0
with reference to which calculation is to be made,
.' has actually worked under the employer for.not less
--:', - than -
(i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman
employed below ground in a mine; and E
(ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case."
8. A bare perusal of the two definitions would reveal that
their applicability is not limited to only full time employees but all
... that is required is that the workman claiming continuous ser- F
vice must fulfill the specific conditions amongst others laid down
7
in the two provisions so as to seek the shelter of Section 25F.
Mr. Nanda's reliance on Uttaranchal Forest Hospital's case (su-
pra) and Ram Lakhan's case (supra) is misplaced. In
Uttaranchal Forest's case (supra) this Court made a passing G
reference to the status of a part time employee, but the main
~
issue before the Court was as to whether the workman had, in
fact, put in 240 days of service which would entitle him to the
benefit of Section 25F of the Ac( This is what the Court had to
say:
H
148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A "It is undisputed that the work of cleaning the hospital has
been given to a contractorw.e·.t. 17.8.1996. Materials were
placed before the Labour Court to show that the workman
was engaged for doing a part-time job and that he had
worked for a few days in several months. The Labour
B Court itself on consideration of the documents and records
pr,oduced noted as follows:-
"lt is evident that the workman had worked in August 1996-
16 days, July, 1996-30 days, May, 1996-30 days, April,
1996 - 30 days, March, 1996 - 29. days, February, 1996
c - 29 days, January, 1996 31 days, December, 1995 -31
days, November, 1995 -20 days (full), October, 1995 -
19 days (full) September, 1995 - 25 days (full) @ Rs.35/
- per day. In addition to this, in November, 1995 - 3 days,
October, 1995( -~~ days @ Rs.20/- per day towards part
D time work and in September, 1995 - days partiime @
Rs.5/- per day, had worked."
The basic difference between a person who is engaged on
a part-time basis for-one hour or few hours and one who is
engaged as a daily wager on regular basis has not been
E kept in view either by the Labour Court or by the High Court.
The documents filed clearly establish that the claim of having
, worked more than 240 days is cle~rly belied.
The-stana of the appellant that the respondent was called
F for work whenever work was available, and as and when ,_
required and that he was not called for doing any work ~
when the same was not available has been established.
The Labour Court ~itself noted that the workman was
engaged in work' by others as he was working in the
appellants' establishment for one hour or little more on
G
some days. It is also seen from the documents produced
before the Labour Court that whenever__respondent was ..,.,,
working for full period of work he was being paid Rs.35/
- per-day and on other days when he worked for one hour
he was getting Rs.5/-." -
H
DIV. MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 149
v. A.SANKARALINGAM [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
-~
9. In Ram Lakhan's case (supra), the issue did come up A
before this Cou11
. and while construing the
. scope of Section 2(s)
and Section 258 of the Act, this Court observed that a person
working on a part time basis could not strictu sensu claim to be
in continuous employment of the employer but the larger ques-
tion as to whether such an employee could be a workman un- B
der Section ~(s) of the Act so as to claim benefit of Section 25F
thereof was being left open for future discussioR. As already
held above on facts, we have endorsed the view of the High
Court that the workman had, in fact, been working virtually on a
full time basis till 5 p.m. and had worked continuously for more c
than 3 years from 2nd January 1986 to 15th March 198~.
10. On the contrary, the preponderance of judicial opinion
that a workman working even on a part time basis would be
entitled to benefit of Section 25F of the Act is clear from the
various judgments which we have referred to above. In Silver D
Jubilee Tailoring House case (supra) which is a judgment ren-
-....
dered by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court, the question was as to
whether the workers who were paid on piece-rate basis though
working in the shop, were workmen in terms of Section 2(s) of
the Act. That is what the Court had to say: E
"11. The question for decision was whether the agrarians
were wor_kmen as defined by Section 2(s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act of 1947 or whether they were independent
-'I
contractors. The Court said that the prima facie test to
~
determine_ whether there was relationship between F
employer and employee is the existence of the right in
the master to supeNise and control the work done by the
seNant not only in matter of directing what work the
employee is to do but also the manner in which he has
to do the work. In other words, the proper test according G
to this Court is, whether or not the master has the right to
control the manner of execution of the work. The Court
further said that the nature of (sic) extent of the control
might vary from business to business and is by its nature
incapable of precise definition, that it is not necessary for H
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

. A holding that a person is an employee, that the employer ·
should be proved to have.exercised control over his work,
that even the test of control-over the manner of work is not
one of universal application and that there are many
contracts in which the master could not control the manner
s in which the work was done."
11. For arriving at this conclusion, the Supreme Court re-
ferred to various judgments of this Court including Birdichand
Sharma's case (supra) but distinguished the judgment in
Shankar Balaji Waje's case (supra) (rendered by two Hon'ble
C Judges) by observing that the workman who was claiming that
status was not called upon to attend duties in the factory itself
as he was permitted to take the tobacco from the factory owner
and role the bid is at his residence at any time without any fixed
hour of workifrld that there was absolutely no supervision of the ·
D so called employer over his work. In conclusion, the Bench ob-
\
served in (paragraph 37): \-
''That the workers are not obliged to work for the whole
day in the shop is not very material. There is of course no
reason why a person who is only employed part time,
E should not be a servant and it is doubtful whether regular
part time service can be considered even prima facie to
suggest anything other than a contract of service.
According to the definition in Section 2(14) of the Act,
even if a person is not wholly employed, if he is principally
F employed in connection with the business of the shop, ..-
he will be· a 'person employed' within the meaning of the '
sub-section Therefore, -even if he accepts some wor~
from other tailoring establishments or does not work whole
time in a particular establishment, thaJ would not in any
G way derogate from his being employe.d in the shop where
he is principally employed."
12. It will be seen from a perusal of the aforequoted pas-
sages that the observations made therein clearly suggest that
a workman employed on a part time basis but under the control
H
DIV. MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 151
v. A.SANKARALINGAM [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
~\ and supervision of an employer is a workman in term of Sec- A
tion 2(s) of the Act, and is entitled to claim the protection of
-1 Section 25F thereof; should the need so arise. The facfthat the
workman was working under the control and supervision of the
appellant employer is admitted on all sides.
13. We also find that the preponderance of judicial opin- B
ion in the High Courts is also to this effect. As a sample we·
_. reproduce passages from two such judgments. A Division Bench
of the punjab and Haryana High Court in Sim/a Devi's case
. (supra), has observed as under:

...... "A plain reading of the definition of "workman" does not c
exclude the part-time workmen from the definition of
"workman". Such exclusion cannot be read into it ipso-
_, facto, except if it is expressly provided or implied that no
other interpretation is possible, which is n()t the case in
the case in hand. We find support for our view from the D
observations made by the Supreme Court in Birdhichand
-... Sharma v. First Civil Judge, (1961-11-LLJ-86), wherein
the Supreme Court in facts and circumstances of the case,
found that the workers even doing the job at their home
are still workmen. Thus we are of the considered view that E
a part-time workman shall fall within the definition of
"workmar" and the finding returned by the Labour Court

..
....
I
that a part-time worker is not a workman, cannot be
_sustained. We may hasten to add that nothing has been
pointed out that on any principle of equity, justice, good
conscience or,the technical interpretation of the definition F
.....
.. of workman that a part-time workman cannot be termed
as a workman i!? unknown to the industrial world."
14. Likewise in GM. Telecom, Nagpur's case (supra), it
has been observed thus: '
G
''The definition of 'workman' as given in the Act-does not
make any distinction between full time employee and part
time employee. It does not lay down that only a person
employed for fUll time will be said to be a workman and
that the one who is employed. for part time should not be H
152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A taken as a workman. What is required is that the person r"'' '-
shoutctbe employed for hire to discharge the work manual, I
skilled or unskiJled etc. in any industry. If this test is fulfilled,
a part time employee can also be said to be a 'workman'.
Now, if this test is applied to the present case, it can very
well be said that respondent No.1, who was appointed as
B
a part-time sweeper and was required to do manual and
unskilled work is a 'workman' within the meaning assigned
to the said terms in the Act and as he worked for more
than 240 days in a year, the provisions of Section 25F of
the Act are applicable to the case in hand and as neither
c any notice, as contemplated under Section 25F of the Act,
was served upon the respondent No.1 nor he was paid
compensation in lieu of the said notice, nor was paid
retrenchment compensation, it cannot be said that the
provisions of Section 25F of the Act were duly complied
D with. It has been time and again held by this Court as well
as by the Apex Court that the non-compliance of the
mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act would
render the termination of service void ab initio. I am.fortified
in this view by a decision of the Apex Court in the case in
Mohan/al vs. Management of Mis. Bharat Electronis Ltd.,
E
(1981) 3 sec 225."
15. Similar views have been expressed in two Sing le Bench
decisions of the Delhi High Court Coal India Ltd. and_Kai/ash
Chand Saigal (supra), by a Single Judge of the Gujarat High
F Court in Govind Bhai's case (supra) and a Division Bench of the ;-
Rajasthan High Court in Yashwant Sinha Yadav's case (supra). '""{
We are in respectful agreement with these opinions as well.

16. The question as to whether a part-time workman would
G be covered within the definition in Section 2(s) of the Act and
whethe·r he would be entitled to the benefit of continuous ser-
vice under section 258 and the benefit of Section 25F, is an- ~
swered in favour of the workma.n-respondent. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed.
H N.J. Appeal dismissed.