CHOISONS Vs. E S I CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act which is represented by its Managing Partner. The firm, apart from other undertakings, owns a petroleum dispensing unit, situated at premises No. 4/137, Cannanore Road, Calicut. The above unit is engaged in dispensing diesel, petrol and motor lubricants. Apart from the above undertaking, the appellant has an office at Oyitty Road, Calicut and a tyre sales business at Court Road, Calicut. There are six employees in the petrol pump. Bills are issued for sale of petrol from the petitioner's pump itself. However, in the office which is situated one and a half kilometre away in another road, there is an office of the firm. In the office, three persons are employed in the final accounts of the firm, accounts of the petrol pump, tyre sales business etc. are reflected. On 7-1-1992, Inspector of the E.S.I. Corporation visited the petrol pump and thereafter notice was issued stating that seven persons were employed in the petrol pump on 8-8-1990 and three persons working in the office were also doing actual work of the petrol pump. Therefore, demand was issued to cover all ten persons as ten persons worked on a day, i.e., on 8-8-1990 since it as a factory and the establishment is covered from that date. The E.I. Court also treated that the appellant's petrol pump is covered as a factory.

(2.) 'Factory' is defined under Section 2 (12) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. It is as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation relied on the decision of the Apex Court in B.M.Lakshmanamurthy v. E.S.I. Corporation, Bangalore . Apex Court held that two factories were working in the same premises and there was environmental proximity and functional unity with these two factories and contract workers were working in the factory premises. All persons working in the same premises were held to be covered in one establishment and one factory. Question in that case was only whether contract workers employed in the premises can be said to be employees for the purpose of main factory and not whether a premises where less than ten employees were engaged can be called a 'factory' taking the number of employees in the far away administrative office of the company which has got several other business also. In Nagpur Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd. v. The Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation , Apex Court held that in the same premises where there are two buildings used in connection with the same manufacturing process, all employees working in the premises should be taken into account for the purpose of the factory. At paragraph 7 it was held as follows: