Venkataramiah, J. - (1.) This petition is filed under Art. 136 of the Constitution for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 11- 12-84 allowing an appeal filed against the judgment dated 31-12-80 in E.I. Case No. 4 of 1980 on the file of the Employees' Insurance Court at Hyderabad.
(2.) The petitioner is a limited company carrying on business at Secunderabad and at some other places in India. The petitioner is engaged in the business of importing fertilizers. It represents some foreign principals for the sale of their products in India. The petitioner imports fertilizers into India which is an item purchased by the Central Government through the State Trading Corporation/Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India. In the course of its business the petitioner obtains the tenders from the State Trading Corporation/Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India and passes them on to its principals abroad. Thereafter negotiations are carried on directly between the State Trading Corporation/Minerals Metals and Trading Corporation of India and the foreign principals. After the deal is completed and the fertilizers arrive at the Indian ports the fertilizers are delivered to the Central Government at the ports. Before delivering the goods to the Central Government the petitioner supervises the unloading of the goods and conducts the survey of the goods imported to ascertain the condition of the goods and to find out whether there are any shortages in the consignments so that there may be no disputes later on about the quality and quantity of the goods delivered. The petitioner- company has its branch offices in Bombay, Calcutta and Madras for supervising its work at the ports and to attend to other matters relating to clearing of shipments and in Delhi for securing payments of bills. Its central office is at Secunderabad.
(3.) The Government of Andhra Pradesh after giving six months' notice vide its gazette notification No. 788 Health dated 25-9-74 as required under S. 1(5), Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') extended the provisions of the Act with effect from 30-3-75 among others to the establishments mentioned therein in which 20 or more persons were employed for wages on any day of the preceding 12 months by Notification G.O.Ms. No. 297, Health dated 25th March, 1975 published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated March 26, 1975. Item 3 (iii) in the list of establishments in that notification to which the Act was so extended by the State Government was "shops". On inspection by the Insurance Inspector of the premises in which the petitioner was carrying on its business at Secunderabad it was found on 28-4-75 that the petitioner had employed persons ranging from 27 to 29 for wages within the relevant period and was carrying on the business of import of fertilizers. On being asked by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation to comply with the provisions of the Act the petitioner agreed that its business was covered by the Act in view of the notification issued by the State Government as it happened to be a "shop" and submitted contribution forms of its employees to the office of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation. After complying with the provisions of the Act for a period of four years the petitioner raised a dispute about its liability to pay the contributions payable under the Act and instituted under S. 75 of the Act the case out of which this petition arises before the Employees' lnsurance Court at Hyderabad for a declaration that the establishment in which the petitioner was carrying on its business was not a "shop" and therefore it was not covered by the notification issued by the State Government and that the petitioner was not liable to comply with the provisions of the Act. The above petition was resisted by the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation. It was pleaded on his behalf that the establishments which was being run by the petitioner was a "shop" and therefore it was liable to comply with the provisions of the Act. The Employees' Insurance Court upheld the plea of the petitioner and declared that the establishment of the petitioner was not covered by the Act. Aggrieved by the decision of the Employees' Insurance Court, the Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation filed an appeal before the High Court under S. 82 of the Act. The High Court allowed the appeal, reversed the decision 'of the Employees' Insurance Court and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under S. 75 of the Act. The High Court was of the view that the establishment of the petitioner at Secunderabad was a "shop" to which the Act was applicable by virtue of the notification issued by the State Government. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the petitioner has filed this petition under Art. 136 of the Constitution requesting this Court to grant special leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court.;