JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. Whether a part-time employee falls within the definition of 'workman' under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (for short, 'the Act') is the question which arises for determination in this petition filed by the petitioner for quashing award dated March 7, 2002 (Annexure P. 1) passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat (respondent No. 1) in Reference No. 1228 of 1999 for reinstatement of respondent No. 2 - [ENTITY] (hereinafter described as 'the workman') with continuity of service and back wages from the date of demand notice, i.e., November 4, 1997,
2. The workman was appointed as a part-time sweeper in the services of the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board w.e.f. June 25, 1982 on monthly wages of Rs. 814/-. He worked in that capacity till October 1, 1997. His service was terminated w.e.f. October 2, 1997. The dispute raised by him questioning the termination of his service was referred by the State Government to Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat for adjudication.
3. In his statement of claim, the workman pleaded that he was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages because he had continuously worked under the employer for a period of more than 15 years and his service was terminated without any enquiry and without complying with the provisions of the Act.
4. On notice, Executive Engineer (Civil), MITC Division Plant, PTPC, Panipat filed reply to contest the claim of the workman. He raised an objection to the maintainability of the reference by asserting that part-time sweeper does not fall within the definition of workman. He did not dispute the total period of work done by the workman but pleaded that he was not entitled to reinstatement because the provisions of the Act were not applicable to his case.
5. On a consideration of pleadings and evidence of the parties and arguments advanced by their representatives, respondent No. 1 passed the impugned award. He over-ruled the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the employer to the maintainability of the reference and held that a part-time employee falls within the definition of workman under [SECTION] of the Act. He further held that the workman had continuously worked as part- time Sweeper from June 25, 1982 to October 1, 1997 and his service was terminated without giving him notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation and this was violative of [SECTION] of the Act. Accordingly, he ordered reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of demand notice.
6. The only ground on which the petitioner has assailed the impugned award is that a part-time employee does not fall within the definition of workman and respondent No. 1 committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the reference and granting relief to him by invoking [SECTION] of the Act.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. [SECTION] of the Act which contains the definition of workman reads as under :
"[SECTION] 'workman' means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or: supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purpose 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, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-
(i) who is subject to the [ACT], or the [ACT], or the [ACT]); -or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or as an employee of a prison;
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature."
8. An analysis of the definition of workman reproduced above shows that any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward falls within the scope of the definition of workman irrespective of the fact that there is no written contract of employment. The source of recruitment of the employee, nomenclature and status of the post on which he is appointed and the mode of payment of wages are not very much relevant for determining whether or not an employee falls within the definition of workman. Whenever the employer questions the legality of reference made by the appropriate Government on the ground that the employee is not a workman within the meaning of [SECTION], it is for him to plead and prove that the employee falls outside the scope of the definition of workman. The only thing which the Court is required to do is to find out whether the employee is employed in an industry for the purpose of doing manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward. If the Court finds that the employee was/is engaged in an industry to do any of the works specified in [SECTION], then he was to be treated as workman for the purpose of the Act irrespective of the fact that he is not employed against a sanctioned post and there is no written contract of employment. The mode of payment of salary on daily-rate basis or on monthly basis is totally irrelevant. It is sufficient that he is paid something in lieu of the work done by him in an Industry. Even a person, who is engaged on part-time or casual basis to do manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work in an industry would fall within the definition of workman under [SECTION] of the Act.
9. In view of the above analysis of the definition of the workman, we hold that every person employed in an industry to do manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward is covered by the definition of workman under [SECTION] of the Act unless his case falls within any of the exceptions enumerated in that Section. It is not, at all relevant that the employee is engaged against a regular/ permanent/temporary post or he is paid as a daily-wager or as a casual worker or is employed on part-time basis. Even if he is not appointed against a sanctioned post, the employee would be treated as a workman if the ingredients enumerated in [SECTION] are present in his employment.
10. We may now notice some of the judgments on the subject. In [PRECEDENT] the Supreme Court considered the question whether a person, who does not work for whole day in the shop falls within the ambit of expression "person employed" appearing in [SECTION] of the [ACT] and answered in the affirmative by making the following observations:
"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, 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 contract of service According to the definition in [SECTION] of the Act, even if a person is not wholly employed, if he is principally employed in connection with the business of the shop, he will be a "person employed" within the meaning of sub-section. Therefore, even if he accepts some work from other tailoring establishments or does not work whole time in a particular establishment, that would not in any way derogate from his being employed in the shop where he is principally employed."
11. In [PRECEDENT] Supreme Court considered the question whether casual or seasonal labourer can seek invalidation of the termination of his service on the ground of violation of the provisions of [SECTION] and held that the employer is bound to comply with the mandatory provisions of that section before terminating the services of such an employee.
12. In [PRECEDENT] the Supreme Court approved the view taken by the High Court that a daily wager falls within the definition of workman under the [ACT] and observed as under at p. 1077 of LLJ:
"5. In the light of the concurrent finding of facts reached by the trial Court as well as the High Court, it becomes clear that though the appellants contended that the workman was a daily wager and, therefore, the provision of [SECTION] of the [ACT], did not apply there is no escape from the conclusion that the workman had worked for four years as clearly established and if he was to be terminated due to any exigencies of service, the procedure for retrenchment was required to be followed. As the condition precedent to such retrenchment was not complied with, the order of reinstatement granted by the Labour Court could not be found fault with."
13. In [PRECEDENT], a Division Bench of Bombay High Court held that carpenters and polishmen engaged in the factory, who were paid on piece-rate basis fallwithin the definition of 'workman' under [SECTION] of the Act.
14. In [PRECEDENT], a learned single Judge of Gujarat High Court held that the definition, of 'workman' under [SECTION] is couched in sufficiently wide term so as to include part-time employees.
15. In [PRECEDENT] a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court considered the question whether a part-time employee is a workman within the meaning of [SECTION] and held at p. 503:
"9. A plain reading of the definition makes it abundantly clear that in order to render a person 'workman' what is required is that he should be employed in any industry to do any manual, skilled or unskilled etc. work for hire. The definition as given in the Act does not make any distinction between a full time employee and a part-time employee. It does not lay down that only a person employed for full time will be taken to be a workman and that one who is only a part time employee should not be taken to be a workman. What is required is that the person should be employed for hire to discharge the work manual, skilled or un-skilled etc. in an industry. If this test is fulfilled, a part time employee will also be a workman as is a full time employee."
16. In [PRECEDENT], a learned single Judge observed that] nature of work and not designation is important for determining whether or not an employee is a workman and held that a daily wage employee and even a part-time employee falls within the definition of workman.
17. In [PRECEDENT], a Division Bench held that a part-time employee is a workman. The Judgment of the Division Bench, which contains the reasons recorded in support of the aforesaid conclusion is reproduced below at p. 789:
"4. A plain reading of the definition of 'workman' does not exclude the part-time workmen for the definition of workmen. 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 not the case in hand. We find support for our view from the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT]. [PRECEDENT] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 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 a part-time workman shall fall within the definition if 'workman' and the finding returned- by the Labour Court 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 of workman that a part-time workman cannot be termed as workman is unknown to the industrial world.
18. As a result of the above discussion and by applying the ratio of the decisions noted above to the facts of this case, we hold that the finding recorded by respondent No. 1 on the issue of applicability of the provisions of [SECTION] of the Act does not suffer from any legal infirmity and the plea of the petitioner that the reference made by the State Government was not maintainable is liable to be rejected.
19. No other point has been raised.
20. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.