HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. ESI CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which by the impugned order dis missed all the appeals filed under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short the 'Act'). The question involved in the appeals was whether the work men engaged were encompassed by the defi nition of an 'employee' under Section 2(9) of the Act. The High Court held that the appellants were the principal employers so far as the concerned workers who are employed are concerned and, therefore, they are li able to pay contribution under the Act. The High Court after quoting Section 2(9) of the Act referred to the decision of this Court in Rajkamal Transport vs. E.S.I.C., Hyderabad (1996) 3 SCALE 806) and held that the or ders passed by the courts below are correct and the appeals lack merit.

(2.) In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that without analyzing the factual position and formulating the right issues, the High Court in an abrupt manner dismissed the appeals. It was submitted that there were different categories of persons involved and one uni form yardstick cannot be applied so far as they are concerned.

(3.) In response, learned counsel for the Corporation supported the judgment of the High Court.