THE WORKMEN OF HINDUSTAN TELEPRINTERS LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY HINDUSTAN TELEPRINTERS EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the workmen of Hindustan Teleprinters Limited, represented by the Hindustan Teleprinters Employees' Union, Madras, against the judgment of Ismail, J., dismissing a petition filed by them for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry States, Madras and to quash the proceedings, dated 13th October, 1972 made by the said Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.

(2.) THE second respondent, namely, the Management of Hindustan Teleprinters Limited, Guindy, Madras, engaged 22 persons for putting up construction for its factory as well as staff quarters. These 22 persons were subsequently absorbed as regular employees by the second respondent. The question that arose for consideration was whether those 22 persons who were employed in putting up construction for the factory as well as staff quarters, before their absorption in the factory, were employees entitled to the benefits under the Act. The learned Judge found that those 22 persons do not answer the requirements in Section 2(f) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act (XIX of 1952). We have no hesitation in accepting the view arrived at by the learned Judge. Section 2(f) of Act XIX of 1952 runs as follows:

(3.) IN a case decided by a Bench of this Court in E.S.I. Corporation v. Sakthi Textiles (P.) Limited : (1975) I LLJ 388 Mad , the question arose whether the workers who were employed for putting up additional buildings for the factory would be workmen within the meaning of the definition under Section 2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. Section 2(9) defines 'employee' as meaning any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory or establishment to which the Act applies. The definition of 'employee' under the Employees' State Insurance Act is in fact wider as it includes, under Clause (i) of Section 2(9), any person directly employed by the principal employer on any work of, or incidental or preliminary to or connected with the work of the factory or establishment, whether such work is done by the employee in the factory or establishment or elsewhere. In considering the question whether the putting up of additional buildings for the expansion of the factory on a subsequent date would be work incidental or preliminary to the work of the factory, it was held that putting up additional buildings for the purpose, of commencing manufacturing process on a later date would not be employment incidental or preliminary to or connected with the work of a factory.