STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION HYDERABAD Vs. MODEL WEAVING CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), which was the respondent before the Insurance Court in Employees' Insurance Case No. 36 of 1977. The Insurance Court by its order, dated 30 June 1977, allowed the petition filed by the Model Weaving Centre, Hussaini Alam, Hyderabad, the respondent herein.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant- Corporation contended mainly that the Model Weaving Centre employed 145 persons in its unit and, therefore, the provisions of S. 2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, are attracted. It was pointed out that the same Insurance Court in Employees' Insurance Case No. 8 of 1976, held that the employees of the same nature working in another similar unit 'at Warangal were neither trainees nor apprentices and the same view equally applies to the employees of the present unit at Hyderabad. It is also stated that the documents relied upon by the respondent centre are forged ones and, therefore, no reliance could be placed on them. That apart, the finding of the Insurance Court is that the employees are winders and weavers working in the centre and the same amounts to mean that they are employees within the meaning of S. 2 (9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act and that they are neither trainees nor apprentices. The learned counsel for the Model Training Centre contended that the presses working in the unit are not employees strictly failing under section 2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act and that they are only trainees and that there is no relationship of master and servant between them. He also submitted that they are members of the society and as such owners as well as employees having dual capacity. The very object in opening the Model Centres is to train persons in evolving new patterns. That apart, to the evidence adduced by the Model Training Centre there is no rebuttal evidence led in by the appellant. In the absence of any evidence rebutting the above fact and the judgment having been based on the material available on record, this Court will not interfere in the finding of fact under S. 82 of the Act. Further there is no substantial question of law involved in this case but it gives rise only to a question of fact.

(3.) To appreciate the above respective contentions, it is necessary to refer in brief to the relevant facts of the case : The Model Weaving Centre, Hyderabad, filed a petition under S. 25 of the Employees' State Insurance Act for a declaration that the Act is not applicable to its unit and that the order of She appellant-Corporation, dated 31 January 1977, is arbitrary and illegal. It is alleged in the petition that the centre is a unit of the Andhra Pradesh State Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Society having been formed by the weavers, a weaker section of the society, to face the competition from the various mills, run on power. The main work of the society is to evolve patterns and distribute them to various handloom weavers and give training to the weavers in evolving new patterns. The persons working in the centre were only trainees receiving training in the trade and the payment made to them is only " stipend " and not salary. While so, the Corporation addressed a letter, dated 28 April 1976, calling upon the centre to pay contributions for the period from 31 May 1975 to 31 January 1976, and the reply of the centre was since an appeal was being filed in the High Court the matter may be kept in abeyance. The centre received another letter, dated 31 January 1977, wherein a sum of Rs. 42,504 together with interest of Rs. 2,309 (aggregate being Rs. 44,813) was claimed. Another notice was received on 7 March 1977, wherein a further contribution of Rs. 20,905.50 for the period from 28 March to 27 November 1976, was claimed. Consequently a distraint warrant for Rs. 44,813 was served by the Tahsildar also. These are all arbitrary and Illegal orders and, therefore, they are sought to be declared so.