K. RAMACHANDRAN (OCCUPIER), RAVENDRA MILLS LIMITED AND ANR. Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, THROUGH THE INSURANCE INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals have been heard together since they raise a common question of law and hence they are being disposed of by a single judgment. In each case the principal question is whether, when an additional building is constructed to install new spindles in an existing factory manufacturing yarn, the workers employed in the construction of the new factory can be held to be employees within the meaning of the expression in the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, and the owner of the building is bound to pay contribution for insurance under the Act.

(2.) A .A.O. No. 260 of 1968 arises out of a petition (No. 12 of 1966) filed under Section 75(2) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Employees State Insurance Corporation to recover a sum of a little over thousand rupees towards the employees' contribution from Ravendra Mills Limited, for the period 1st January, 1961 to 30th September, 1963. The Mills were manufacturing yarn engaging more than twenty persons and certainly constituted a 'factory' within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the Act. The Mills wanted to expand their manufacturing capacity and certain buildings were put up in that connection. The buildings also included a rest -house for the workers and a creche for the workers' children. The rest -house and the creche would be useful even for the employees already employed in the existing factory. For putting up these buildings some workers were employed. The Mills contended that these workers would not come within the definition of 'employee' in Section 2(9) of the Act and that therefore, they were not liable to pay any contribution in respect of these workers. The Employees State Insurance Court, viz., the District Judge, Coimbatore, overruling their pleas, allowed the application of the State Insurance Corporation. Hence the appeal by the Mills.

(3.) A .A.O.No. 262 of 1968 arises out of an application (No. 5 of 1967) filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation against Sarguna Textiles for recovery of a sum of Rs. 510 for contribution under the Act. The contention of the Mills was that they put up the additional machinery for installing more spindles, that they employed the workmen through independent contractors, that the workers were not employees within the meaning of the definition under the Act and that they were not liable to pay contribution. That plea was overruled and the petition was allowed. Hence the appeal by the Mills.