ESI CORPORATION Vs. BABU RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The important question that had come up for consideration was whether the ESI Corporation could claim contribution from the employers in respect of the workers deployed by the Committee constituted under S.18 of the Headload Workers Act for doing headload work in establishments.

(2.) Sri. N. Babu Rao, the respondent herein was conducting the business of processing of pepper and was engaging headload workers for doing the headload works. The ESI Corporation demanded contribution in relation to the period from 3/1992 to 9/1992 and from 10/1992 to 3/1993. The respondent challenged the above order before the E.I. Court in I.C. No. 118/93 and prayed for a declaration that the establishment could not be covered under the ESI Act and Scheme. The E.I. Court allowed the above petition partly. Aggrieved by the above order, the ESI Corporation had filed this appeal.

(3.) The respondent was running an establishment of processing of pepper. He had attached headload workers for doing the headload works. When there was more work, he used to require the service of headload workers from the Committee constituted under S.18 of the Headload Workers Act. Accordingly, the Committee was deploying headload workers to the establishment of the respondent and was collecting the wages and other amounts including an amount of Rs. 25 in excess of the wages for the implementation of the benefits under the Welfare Scheme.