- (1.) SINCE the facts and question of law that arises for consideration in all these appeals are common, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the orders passed by the Employees Insurance Court in E. I. Case. No. 52 of 1992 dated March 15, 1992; E. L. C. No. 54 of 1992 dated March 15, 1992; E. I. Case No. 1 of 1994 dated May 12, 1994; and E. I. Case Nos. 35,30,31,41,33,39 of 1990 dated November 6, 1993 respectively holding that the Hamalies are employees and the Transport Corporation is liable to pay contribution, the appellant-Transport Corporation filed these appeals. In C. M. A. No. 1021 of 1992 the order under challenge relates to the applicability of the provisions of the E. S. I. Act as well as the period of limitation and hence this appeal will be considered separately. The facts which are necessary to dispose of these appeals are as follows.
(3.) THE appellant herein filed petitions before Employees Insurance Court at Hyderabad under Section 75 (1) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 praying to determine the dispute between the appellant and the first respondent E. S. I. Corporation with regard to the applicability of the provisions of the E. S. I. Act and contribution if any payable by the Appellant-Corporation and consequently declare the proceedings dated July 6, 1984 initiated by the respondent-Corporation as illegal and set aside the same. The case of the appellant as regards the plea now under challenge is that Hamalies charges cannot be considered to be the wages since they do not fall under the definition of wages and that the hamalies are not employees. It is its further case that it never engaged hamalies directly and that there is no employer and employee relationship between them as for the purpose of loading and unloading work the drivers or owners of the vehicles, who will be paid in lump sum, will engage them. The case of the first respondent-Corporation is that its Inspector on verification of the records found that the appellant itself engaged the hamalies for loading and unloading work and hence it claimed contribution on the wages to regular employees, temporary employees/trainees as well as hamalies. It is also its case that hamalies are also employees within the meaning of Section 2 (9) of the E. S. I. Act and in support of its case it relied upon a decision of this Court in Rajkamal Transport Co. v. E. S. I. C. (1996-II-LLJ-435) wherein it was held that hamalies do come within the meaning of Section 2 (9) of the E. S. I. Act and therefore it was constrained to initiate proceedings under Section 45-B of the Act. The Employees Insurance Court after framing the necessary issues and considering the oral and documentary evidence found that the account books belonging on the appellant would go to show that wages are paid to hamalis by the appellant and the work of loading and unloading is carried on in the premises of the appellant and as per its directions and if the contention of the appellant that the drivers look after the work of loading and unloading is correct, then there would not have been any entry as regards payment of wages to the hamalies and thus came to the conclusion that the first respondent-Corporation has rightly claimed the contributions on their wages. Hence, these appeals.;