N.K.S. RAJARATHINAM CHETTIAR Vs. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY LOCAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are against the order of the Employees Insurance Court (District Judge, Salem) dismissing two applications filed by the proprietor of a flour mill in which he prayed that the claim made by the Regional Director of Employees State Insurance Corporation should be cancelled. There were two claims by the Corporation, one for employees' contribution and the other for employers' contribution. The proprietor of the flour mill contended that his mill is not a factory as defined under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the "Act" and that therefore the claims made by the Regional Director of the Employees State Insurance Corporation are not valid. The Employees Insurance Court did not accept the contention of the petitioner before it, and hence, the two appeals by him.

(2.) THE admitted fact is that during the relevant period, there were 14 workmen and 5 clerks working in the flour mill. The Inspector of the Corporation had visited the premises on 4th October, 1967, 7th February, 1968 and 23rd March, 1968 and he has submitted his survey report as per Exhibit B -1 dated 5th April, 1968. On the three days, he so visited the premises, admittedly 14 workmen and 5 clerks were working there. It is also not disputed that they are all persons who were working for wages. In addition to them, the petitioner (appellant before me) as the proprietor of the concern was also found in the premises. It may be taken for the present purpose that he was found working in the mill on those days. If the propriety is also to be counted as one of the persons contemplated under Section 2(12) of the Act, then undoubtedly 20 persons were working on the relevant dates. It is not disputed that under such circumstances the flour mill would be a factory as defined under Section 2(12) of the Act. However, the contention on behalf of the petitioner appellant is that he, as the proprietor, is not a person as contemplated under Section 2(12) of the Act as it is nobody's case that he is receiving wages.

(3.) IN the Court below the petitioner had contended that even the clerks are not to be counted for finding out whether the premises is a factory or not. That contention has been rejected and such a contention is not raised before me. Therefore, the only question is whether the proprietor is also a person coming under the definition contained in Section 2(12) of the Act.