STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION Vs. EMPLOYEESSRI SAKTHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED; POLLACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal filed by the Employees'State Insurance Corporation against the judgment of the Employees'State Insurance Court and the District judge, Coimbatore, holding that the workers engaged by the mills for putting up additional constructions are not employees within the definition of the term in the Act.

(2.) THE short facts necessary are as follows : Sri Sakthi textiles Private Limited was granted additional spindleage and it expanded its premises by putting up new buildings. For that purpose, it employed a large number of workers. THE plea of the respondent-mills is that no muster roll was kept regarding these workers whose work was to last only till the buildings was completed and that the workers thus recruited were working on an ad hoc basis just when required. THE Employees'State Insurance Corporation is of the view that the workmen thus employed fell within the ambit of the definition of the term in the Act and that the appellant is bound to pay the contribution. THE employees'State Insurance authorities fixed the contribution payable at Rs. 24, 356. 27 and sought to recover that sum under the Revenue Recovery Act. THE mills objected to the proceedings and took up the matter before the Employees' state Insurance Court under S. 75 of the Act questioning the right of the employees'State Insurance Corporation to collect the sum of Rs. 24, 356. 27, the lower Court on a consideration of the question, and relying on the decision of this Court in South India Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. , v. Employees'State insurance Corporation, 1969 (37) FJR 101, held that the workers concerned were not employees under the Act.

(3.) THE position, therefore, is that a person in order to claim the benefit as an employee should be employed for wages in connections with the work of a factory and should be employed by the principal employer on any work incidental or preliminary to the work of the factory. THE inclusive definition, which was added after the decision of the Bombay High Court referred to above, would bring within its purview persons employed for wages on any work connected with the administration of the factory or establishment or any part, department or branch thereof or with the purchase of raw materials for, or the distribution or sale of the products of the factory or establishment. Even this inclusive definition would not bring within its purview persons who are employed in a work which is totally unconnected with the existing factory, that is, putting up additional buildings for the future expansion of the existing factory. We are in agreement with the view taken by alagiriswami, J. , in South India Flour Mills Ltd. , v. Employees'State insurance Corporation, 1969 (37) FJR 101. THE Employees'State Insurance Court was right in rejecting the claim of the Employees'State Insurance Corporation. THE appeal is dismissed with costs.