E S I C Vs. AYURVEDIC INDUSTRIAL CO-OP PHARMACY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question before us in this appeal is one which had come up before us on earlier occasions and in view of the fairly elaborate arguments addressed before us in this case we feel it appropriate to deal with the question in some detail in this appeal.

(2.) We had occasion to consider the question of coverage, under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, of persons casually engaged. We held that such casual workmen are not within the scope of coverage under the Act. But we are afraid that in some cases before the Employees Insurance Courts of the State our decision has not been applied in its true spirit. That is possibly because the use of the term 'casual labour' in that context has not been properly understood in such cases by the Employees State Insurance Court. That is the reason why we propose to deal with the question here, now that the question is raised before us in this appeal.

(3.) The appellant before us is the Regional Director of the Employees State Insurance Corporation. The complaint is that the Employees Insurance Court was in error in holding that the employees of the applicant were not liable to be covered merely because they were employed for a short period. The applicant was a Cooperative Pharmacy engaged in the manufacture and sale of Ayurvedic medicines. According to the applicant the regular employees were only 9 in number and they had to employ temporarily more number of persons during a period of about 20 to 25 days on account of the fact that they obtained an order from the State Government for supply of medicines. To cope with that order they had to manufacture more medicines than was normal. It was on that account that they took into service some more employees for a period of 20 to 25 days. These persons were not, according to the applicant, liable to be covered as they were casual employees or casual workers. That plea seems to have appealed to the court. Consequently it has been found that the applicant had not employed the required number of workers in the factory calling for coverage.