Part-Time Worker Qualifies as Workman Under ID Act

Case Details: Block Medical Officer-cum-chairman, executive committee, rogi kalyan samiti vs. Shakuntla Devi - [2026] 186 taxmann.com 265 (HC-Himachal Pradesh)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
Uday Singh Banyal, Adv. for the Petitioner.
Tek Chand, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Respondent was appointed as a Safai Karamchari in the Civil Hospital under the Rogi Kalyan Samiti. She had worked continuously for about 7 years and had completed more than 240 days in each year. She was terminated without any notice or retrenchment compensation in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Labour Court found that the respondent had worked through a contractor before April 2017, and from April 2017 to 31.12.2021, she worked part-time at government rates directly with the petitioner.

At the time of termination, she was an employee of the petitioner and a “workman” under the Act. It recorded completion of 240 days of continuous service in 12 months preceding termination, and that no notice or wages in lieu under Section 25-F were given. It directed reinstatement on a similar post, wages from the date of retrenchment, and compensation of Rs. 0.50 lakhs by way of back wages.

It was noted that there was clear and distinguished relationship of employer and employee between Block Medical Officer, hospital and respondent. Further, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not differentiate between part-time, full-time, contract, daily-wage, regular, and permanent workers in its definition of ‘workman’.

Further, it was noted that even as a part-time worker, the respondent would still fall within the ambit of a workman under the Act.

High Court Held

The High Court held that since respondent had completed 240 days of continuous service within the last preceding 12 months of her employment with petitioner and before terminating the services of the respondent, notice under Section 25F or wages in lieu thereof had not been issued/paid to the respondent, termination of the respondent’s service violated the provisions of Section 25F of the Act.

Therefore, the Labour Court did not err in concluding that the termination of the respondent’s service violated the provisions of Section 25F, and no interference was called for with the impugned award.