THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, MADRAS BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR Vs. THE KWALITY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD., POLLACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil miscellaneous appeal by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation arises out of a petition under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petition was filed by the Kwality Spinning' Mills (P.) Ltd/, which is the respondent before me. The Mills wanted a declaration that (1) the workers employed in building work and (2) the apprentices are not employees as per the definition of the term 'employee' in the Act and for a direction that the Corporation should desist from collecting the contribution in respect of them. The Insurance Court (District Judge, Coimbatore) upheld the contention of the Mills, holding that neither the workmen employed for construction of expansion of the factory building, nor the apprentices are employees as defined under the Act and that in respect of them no contribution is payable. Hence the appeal by the Corporation.

(2.) As far as the workers engaged in construction work, the learned counsel for the Corporation stated that he was not pressing the appeal. It is common ground that the mills in order to expand has been putting up additional buildings and for such construction work there were several persons working. In respect of such workers engaged in the construction of the. additional building, no contribution can be claimed because they are not employees employed by the principal employer on any work of, or incidental or preliminary to or connected with the work of, the factory or establishment. It has been so held in several earlier cases and therefore the learned counsel for the Corporation rightly conceded that the appeal cannot be maintained as far as the building workers are concerned. Therefore, the only question is whether the apprentices who were working in the Mills are employees as defined in Section 2 (9) of the Act.

(3.) There is no dispute that the apprentices had been taken by the Mills under a contract, the ,pro forma of which is marked as Ex. A-3. Admittedly as per the terms of the agreement between the Mills and the apprentices, the latter had no right of being absorbd in the Mills after the period of apprenticeship. However, during the apprenticeship period, they do work in the Mills and it is not disputed that the work they would be doing is one connected with the Mills which is a factory. It is also not in dispute that the apprentices were being paid stipends during the period of apprenticeship. Now the question is whether, on the above admitted facts, the apprentices can be called employees as defined under Section 2 (9) of the Act.