E S I C Vs. R SREEDHARA PANICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of an order dated 6th August, 1971 of the Employees' Insurance Court, Nagercoil, holding that the respondent's factory will sot fall within the definition of factory, in Section 2 (12) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1968, herein, after referred to as the Act on an application filed by the respondent under Sections 75 and 77 of that Act.

(2.) THE respondent is manufacturing certain ayurvedic preparations is his premises called "amrithapradayani. Vydisasala", Vetturu Madam, Nagercoil, where more than 20 persons have been employed. The said manufacturing premises of the respondent was inspected by the Inspectors appointed under the Act, on 26th February, 1966 and they came to the conclusion that the premises will come under the definition of "factory" in the Act on the ground that water is pumped out from the well with the use of two horse power electric motor for the purpose of manufacture of medicines, and therefore, the manufacturing premises can be said to be carried on with the aid of power. The respondent's case, however, is that his manufacturing premises would not constitute a factory, as be is not manufacturing the ayurvedic preparation with the aid of power and that the water pumped out from the well is not at all used for the preparation of Ayurvedic medicines, but is used only for cleaning the bottles and for lavatory purposes. Since the authorities constituted under the Act did not accept the respondent's plea that his manufacturing premises cannot be taken to be a factory as defined in the Act and as such he is not liable to pay the contributions contemplated by the Act, he filed an application under Sections 75 and 77 of the Act. before the Employees' Insurance Court, at Nagercoil. for a declaration that his premises will not come under the definition of "factory" and that, therefore, the employees therein are not covered by the Act.

(3.) THE Employees' Insurance Court found on evidence that the water pumped from the well by the use of 2 horse-power electric motor has been used only for the purpose of cleaning bottles and for soaking the herbs, which are used for ayurvedic preparations. It, therefore, took the view that the mere user of water for the purpose of cleaning the bottles and soaking the herbs, cannot make the user of the electric power integrally connected with the manufacturing premises, and that, therefore, the manufacturing process cannot be said to have been carried on with the use of power so as to bring the premises under the definitions of "factory" as defined in the Act. In this view, it held that the respondent's factory cannot come within the definition of "factory" under the Act, and therefore, the employees therein are not coveted by the Act. Consequently, by its decrial order it directed the Corporation to refund to the respondent a sum of Rs. 7,842-67, being the amount of contribution recovered from the respondent, with interest at 12 per cent per annum from 18th December, 19,0, the date of the petit on, to the date of realisation of the said sum by the respondent.