C E S C LIMITED Vs. SUBHASH CHANDRABOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had the advantage of perusing the draft judgments prepared by my learned brethren Punchhi and Ramaswamy, JJ. While Justice Punchhi by the literal construction of the statute, brother Ramaswamy has tried to find out the spirit of the legislation and with a view to conferring the benefit on the workmen, has adopted a construction different from the reported decision 1 of this Court.

(2.) I agree with Justice Punchhi that the appeals should be dismissed and the judgment of the Division Bench should be sustained. At the same time, 1 would like to add that the legislative intention should have been brought out more clearly-by undertaking appropriate legislation once this Court took a different view in the decision referred to in brother Punchhi's judgment. The legislation is beneficial and if by interpretation 1;ut by the Court the intention is not properly brought out it becomes a matter for the legislature to attend to.

(3.) PUNCHHI, J (Per majority):- The sole question which falls for determination in these appeals is, whether on the facts found, the right of the Principal employer to reject or accept work on completion, on scrutinizing compliance with job requirements, as accomplished by a contractor, the immediate employer, through his employees, is in itself an effective and meaningful "supervision" as envisaged under Section 2 (9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the Act) The said provision, as it stood at the relevant time, is set out below, as is relevant for our purpose:-