Sukumar Chakraborty, J. - (1.) This appeal has arisen out of the order, dated 24 December 1975, passed by Sri D.K. Banerjee, the learned Judge, Employees' Insurance Court, West Bengal, in case No. 135 of 1974.
(2.) W.H. Herton & Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company, filed the application under S. 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as Act) against the Employees' State Insurance Corporation for a declaration that the staff of the company's head office/registered office at 8, Dalhousie Square, East Calcutta, were not the "employees" as defined in the Act and were not covered by the Act and that the company was not legally liable to make any contribution against the salary paid to the employees posted at the head office/registered office, together with a prayer for injunction restraining the Employees' State Insurance Corporation from proceeding with the recovery of such contribution in respect of the employees posted at head office/registered office.
(3.) The case of the applicant company was as follows: The company had its registered office at Dalhousie Square, East Calcutta, and its factory at J.N. Mukherjee Road, Naskar Para, Howrah. The entire manufacturing process of the factory of the applicant-company was done at its factory. The work relating to the administration, procurement of raw materials and sale of finished products were also done by the staff in the factory. None of the employees posted at the head office/registered office of the company was on the factory rolls and the salary to such employees was not paid from the factory account. None of the employees of the head office/ registered office was transferable to the factory. The representation made in this respect on behalf of the company to the Inspector of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation on his visit to the head office/ registered office from time to time yielded no result and the Employee's State Insurance Corporation on a misconception of the meaning of the "employee" as defined in S. 2 (9) of the Act and ignoring the provisions of S. 1 (5) of the Act demanded of the company payment of contribution in respect of the employees posted at the head office/registered office under the Act. The employees of the head office/registered office could not be brought under the coverage of the Act without the notification issued under S. 1 (5) of the Act and as such the demand made by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation for payment of contributions in respect of those employees was illegal. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation without taking into consideration the above fact took a summary recourse to proceed under the Revenue Recovery Act by sending a number of requisitions to Collectorate, 24 Parganas, in respect of the demands for payment of the contributions and obtained the certificate against the company and its directors. Such demands for contributions by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation and the summary procedure as adopted by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation were not according to law and accordingly the application under consideration was filed for the relief as already stated.;