E S I C Vs. K RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals have been filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation against the common judgment of Venkataraman, J. , in C. M. A. Nos. 260, 26l and 262 of 1968 The respondents in each of the appeals before us are different, but the question raised is the same. It arises in the following circumstances

(2.) THE respondents are textile mills in Combater District They had constructed their factories some time ago. Ever since then, they have been engaged in the production of yarn. Recently each of these mills proceeded to put up additional factory buildings for installing extra spindles and for expanding production. Construction workers were, naturally, employed to do the work of actual construction of these additional buildings

(3.) THE question arose whether these construction workers were employees within the meaning of the Employees' Mate Insurance Act, 1948. If they were, then the respondents were under a statutory obligation to pay the contribution to the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, if not, not. The Employees' State Insurance Court (District Judge), Combater, took the view that these construction workers must be regarded as "employees" falling within the statutory definition. On appeal by the mills concerned, Venkataraman, J. , in a common judgment, held otherwise His view is now being challenged before us in these Letters Patent Appeals by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation.