E S I CORPORATION Vs. AYURVEDIC I C P

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.) WE referred to the above decision in E. S. I Corp. v. United Electrical Industries, 1975 KLT. 714. WE said in that decision thus: "the mere fact that certain workmen are referred to as casual workmen does not, of course, determine their character but if, from the facts, it is found that they are not "employed" by the employer but are mainly engaged for casual labour, then, of course, there is no scope for demanding contribution in respect of such workmen".