M.D., KARNATAKA HANDLOOM DEV. CORPN.LTD. vs SRI MAHADEVA LAXMAN RAVAL

The Supreme Court held that the respondent, appointed under the VISHWA programme for a fixed term, did not qualify as a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specifically Section 2(s), as he was engaged on a temporary contract basis and was independently conducting his weaving business. The Court emphasized that the Labour Court's finding of reinstatement was erroneous due to lack of evidence showing continuous employment for 240 days, as required under Section 25B of the I.D. Act. Consequently, the appeal by the Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation was allowed, overturning the lower court's decision.