THE MYSINDIA TILES AND ENGINEERING COMPANY Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION THROUGH ITS INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the learned First Additional Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras as Employees Insurance Court, decreeing the claim for Rs. 7,125 claimed as contribution payable under Section 40 (1) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, on an ad hoc basis for the period 1st October, 1957 to 30th June, 1965 in respect of certain employees of the appellants' factory.

(2.) It is not disputed that the factory in question is a factory as defined in Section 2 (12) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, liable to pay employees contribution and in respect of the permanent employees of the factory such contribution was being paid. In Exhibits A -1, A -2, A -12 and A -13 the inspectors who visited the factory on the several dates mentioned therein found some casual workers engaged in the manufacture of mosaic tiles in addition to permanent employees. The manager of the appellant company as R.W. 1 testified that casual labourers were employed for laying the tiles in buildings on contract work done outside the factory and also for crushing marble lumps which were used as mosaic chips in the making of mosaic tiles. But there was no evidence that these casual labourers were employed only for laying mosaic tiles outside the factory by contractors. The evidence of R.W. 1 was that crushed marble lumps were used as mosaic chips in the making of the tiles. In its accounts the appellant company had not shown the wages paid to casual labourers separately and the wages paid to permanent labourers separately. It had mixed up the wages paid to permanent labourers and casual labourers and entered them under one head of account namely tiles -wages. No attendance register was also maintained in respect of casual labourers, with the result there was no record from which it could be found who were the casual labourers who were employed in the manufacture of tiles by the appellant company, though there was definite evidence and it was not disputed that casual labourers were employed by the appellant company. In those circumstances the Employees' Insurance Court held that the employees in respect of whom contribution was claimed fell under Section 2 (9) of the Act and the appellant company was liable to pay that contribution.

(3.) There was dispute as to the quantum of contribution payable. The Employees' Insurance Court was unable to accept the statement of account filed by the appellant company on the ground that it had omitted to take into account several items. For two items of payments made to casual workmen who were employed for laying tiles outside the scope of the factory the Insurance Court found that no acceptable data or basis had been given which would support the omission of those items and that the company was not in a position to satisfy the Court that the payment of wages which the company had omitted to include in the statement of account represented really wages paid to casual labourers who had nothing to do with the manufacture of mosaic tiles.