The concept of work is undergoing rapid change due to the integration of national economies. New forms of work are fast replacing the traditional concept of permanent, full-time work. As a result, work-related legal concepts such as who is a workman within the scope of technical definitions under various labour laws are also subject to transformation.

In order to remain competitive, employers often prefer part-time workers to a full-time, permanent workforce. The question then arises whether part-time, regular workers are included in the definition of ‘workmen’ under the labour laws of the country.

In a case dated 23 November 2007  before the Gujarat High Court, Tourism Corporation of Gujarat Limited v/s Kalu Valji Jethwa (2008 1 CLR 566), the nature of part-time work and the rights of part-time workers under Indian Labour Law were examined closely. The respondent was appointed as a part-time sweeper by the Tourism Corporation in one of its hotels in Junagad for a fixed period. Upon the expiry of the said fixed period, his services were brought to an end. The respondent raised an industrial dispute under Industrial Disputes Act 1947, contending that his services were illegally terminated without fulfilling the requirements of the Act.

The dispute was referred to the Labour court, which awarded in favour of the respondent and directed the Corporation to reinstate the respondent within 30 days of the award. The award was challenged in the High Court. The High Court directed the Corporation to appoint the respondent workman as a fresh employee with full wages. The Corporation appealed against the order of the single judge before the Division Bench (DB). One important question raised before the DB was whether a part-time  worker is a ‘workman’ and is entitled to all the benefits extended to a regular workman under the labour laws or not. The DB requested that the matter may be referred to a larger bench. The larger bench examined all the arguments on both sides and came to the following conclusions:

1. If a person falls under the definition of a ‘workman’ u/s2(s) of the ID Act and does not fall under any excluded category, he will be entitled to all the benefits under the Act.
2. ii.       The number of hours is not the determining criterion for deciding whether a person falls within the definition of ‘workman’ or not.
3. To decide the status of a worker rendering services for less than 40 hours a week, various aspects are required to be considered such as:

a)     The control test, the integration test and other relevant tests are equally relevant for deciding the status of a person working part-time as they are for a full-time working person.

b)     In deciding whether a person rendering part-time services is a workman or not, the nature of industry, the nature of the services being rendered by the person, the terms and conditions of engagement and other relevant factors have to be taken into consideration.

c)     When granting relief to such concerned workmen, the courts have to take into consideration the nature of engagement of an employee in one or more establishments as a part-time worker.

Thus, changes in the forms of production require similar changes in the forms of work in the rapidly changing world of work. Flexibility is the new buzzword in the employment relationship. However, mere convenience on the part of either of the parties by itself does not confirm or negate the status of such a person as a workman within the meaning of ID Act. Thus, the Court decided that just as the question whether an employee is or is not a workman is a mixed question of fact and law, the question whether a part-time employee is or is not a workman also is a mixed question of fact and law.

In another case dated 16 January 2008, before the Bombay High Court requiring the interpretation of the concept of ‘Industry’ under the ID Act 1947, the Court examined the scope of the sovereign functions of the state to ascertain which functions of the state will not fall within the purview of the definition of Industry.

In Sarjerao Bhaurao Ekal v/s SK Pant Walawalkar (2008 I CLR 690), the petitioner was employed as a clerk cum typist by Dr Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan Remand Home, Kolhapur, which was being managed by the District Probation and After Care Association. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner was dismissed from service upon being found guilty. The order of dismissal was challenged under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971. The Association contended in its application that a remand home or observation home for children is not an industry within the meaning of section 2 (j) of the ID Act. Therefore, such a complaint was not maintainable. The Labour court rejected the argument of the Association. This order was challenged by the Association in a revision application before the Industrial Court, which allowed the application. The  High Court held that having regarded the nature of activities and purpose for which it is created, the activities of the Remand Home cannot be within the ambit of the term ‘Industry’ since such homes can be established only under various Acts by respective state governments and are supervised by bodies constituted by the government. As there is no commercial purpose behind such activities, these will fall within the meaning of ‘sovereign functions’ of the state and, as per the ratio of the Bangalore Water Supply Sewerage Board case, will be exempt from the scope of the definition of ‘Industry’ under section 2 (j) of the ID Act. Hence, no relief can be claimed by the employees of such remand homes under the ID Act.