SIRSILK LIMITED SIRPUR KAGHAZNAGAR Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD
LAWS(APH)-1963-8-4
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on August 16,1963

SIRSILK LTD., SIRPUR, KAGHAZNAGAR REPRESENTED BY GENERAL POWER OF Appellant
VERSUS
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Chandra Reddy, J. - (1.) This is an appeal under Section 82 (2) of the Employees State Insurance Act (34 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order of the Employees Insurance Court, Hyderabad, holding that the workmen in the canteen attached to the Sirsilk Limited, Sirpur-Kagaznagar, are employees of the appellant, and, consequently, the appellant is liable to contribute to the Employees insurance fund.
(2.) The Regional Director, the Employees State Insurance Corporation called upon the appellant to make a contribution to this fund for the staff of the canteen. It is to avoid compliance with the requisition of the Regional Director that the appellant had recourse to Section 75 of the Act inviting the decision of the Employees Insurance Court. The Insurance Court took the view that the workmen of the canteen are the employees of the appellant for purposes of the Act and hence the appellant was obliged to contribute to the insurance fund for the workers in the canteen. It is this conclusion of the Insurance Court that is challenged before us.
(3.) It is urged by the learned Advocate General appearing for the appellant that the canteen being an autonomous body managed by the canteen committee, it is a separate entity unconnected with the factory, that there was no contract of service between the employees of the canteen and the management of the factory, that separate accounts are maintained for the canteen and that the employees of the canteen are not under the control and supervision of the management and, therefore, there Is complete dissociation between this institution and tin factory. The learned Advocate-General fortified this argument by adverting to the testimony of D. K. Birla, member of the Managing Committee. On the basis of his evidence, the learned Advocate-General contended that there is no scope for the workmen of the canteen to invoke the aid of the provisions of the Act. He maintains that It is difficult to bring the staff of the canteen within the range and sweep of the relevant sections of the Act.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.