- (1.) These appeals arise from the order of the division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High court dated 7/2/1985 made in CMAs Nos. 868 and 297 of 1981. The admitted facts are that the appellants had engaged hamalis for loading and unloading of the goods undertaken by them for carriage as carriers. The respondent has applied the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (Act No. 34 of 1948 (for short, 'the Act') to the appellants' establishment and called upon them to pay their contribution for the periods mentioned in the notice served on them with interest at 7% thereon. The appellants have disputed the liability and made an application for determination under Section 76 of the Act. The Insurance court had held that the hamalis are employees within the meaning of Section 2 (9 of the Act. Though the appellants collect the charges from the customers and pay the amount to the hamalis at the piece rate for the work they do, they have got supervision of loading and unloading by the hamalis. The hamalis are not appointed or controlled by any other agency. Accordingly appellants are liable to contribute the amount called upon towards the insurance benefit of the workmen under the Act. The appeals came to be dismissed by the High court. Thus these appeals by special leave.
(2.) Shri C. Sitaramiah, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that there is no relationship of master and servant; no regular salary is paid by the appellants to the hamalis and there are no fixed hours of work for the hamalis. Under those circumstances, the hamalis cannot be considered to be the employees nor the appellants be treated as employer under the Act. We find no force in the contention.
(3.) Section 2 (9 of the Act defines 'employee' to mean any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory or establishment to which the Act applies. Clause (ii) envisages that they need not necessarily be directly employed by the employer. Those who are employed by or through an immediate employer on the premises of the factory or establishment or under the supervision of the principal employer or his agent on work which is ordinarily part of the work of the factory or establishment or which is preliminary to the work carried on in or incidental to the purpose of the factory or establishment is an employee within the meaning of Section 2 (9 of the Act. The controversy is no longer res integra.;