G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 against the order of Shri M. D. Choudhary, Judge Employees State Insurance Court, Jaipur dated 12-4-78.
(2.) MR. Gupta has argued that there is an Executive Engineer for the city of Ajmer, who holds his office in the same building but his office is absolutely independent of the offices of the Assistant Engineers who are heads of their subdivisions. The Executive Engineer office is a coordinating office and does not do any managerial or administrative work connected with the sub-divisions which is solely done by the Assistant Engineers. The dispute is about the office of the Executive Engineer. The learned Judge has held that Act to be applicable to the office of the Executive Engineer mainly on the ground that the office is situated in the same premises in which the office of Assistant Engineers are located. It is submitted that this can hardly be a consideration and the learned Judge has arrived at wrong conclusion. Mr. H. P. Gupta then further argued that the learned Judge should have considered the important facts that the receiving of the electricity at the Grid Sub-station and transmission through the various transformers are done at the several places in open air and people working on these works are already covered by the Employees State Insurance Act and so also the staff working in the Assistant Engineer's offices which control, manage and administer the work of distribution. Mr. Gupta then pointed out that the employees working in the office of the Executive Engineer do not even remotely work in the factory or are connected with the factory or with the administration of the factory, which is done by the people working in the fields and sitting in the office of the Assistant Engineer who is the manager and head of the sub-division. Mr. Gupta then argued that the office of the Executive Engineer is not a factory within the meaning of section 2 (12) of the Employees State Insurance Act even though it does not do anything connected with distribution of electricity in the town done by 4 sub-divisions each managed and headed by an Assistant Engineer separately.
(3.) MR. J. P. Gupta has supported the judgment under appeal. He has repeated the same arguments which have been adopted by the Judge Employees Insurance Court. On a serious and thoughtful consideration of the entire matter, I am of the opinion that after amendment of 1966 by Act No. 44 of 1966, the definition of the employees under Section 2 (a) has become very comprehensive. The employees working outside factory in Zonal Offices or Branch Offices and concerned with the work of the administration are also covered. In my opinion the decisions of AIR 1978 SC 356 is applicable in the present case. In it the following principle is laid down:- "employees State Insurance Act (1948) S. 2 (9) (as amended by Act No. 44 of 1966), 2 (12) 38 and 39-Employees Definition of Employees, working in Zonal and Branch Offices of Factory covered by provisions of the Act. " ;