EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION Vs. NAMBISANS D V DAIRY FARM A PARTNERSHIP FIRM NO 7 FOURTH TRUST CROSS STREET MANDAVALLIPAKKAM MADRAS 28

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT is the appellant. The appeal is against the order passed by the 'Employees State Insurance Judge (First Additional Judge, City Civil Court), Madras, in E.I.O.P. No. 13 of 1979 filed by the respondent herein under Sec.75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act.

(2.) THE respondent herein filed the petition alleging that it is a partnership firm having 8 partners and carrying on business as sole selling agents of dairy products and they have an establishment in Kerala and Karnataka State besides at Madras city. THE establishments at Madras, Kerala and Karnataka are different entities and the administration and management of each establishment are different and independent. THEre are 8 employees in the establishment at Madras, 7 at Karnataka and 23 at Kerala. THE Employees' State Insurance Corporation viz., the appellant herein, sent a letter to the respondent herein to the effect that the respondent establishment is covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and they are liable to pay the contributions, on the basis of the two notifications issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu wherein shops are also covered by the said Act. THE said letter was issued according to the Government notifications relied upon by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, and hence the same cannot apply to their establishments outside the State of Tamil Nadu and therefore they sought a declaration that the establishment in Madras and the establishments in Kerala and Karnataka are not liable to be covered under the Act 34 of 1948. THE Employees' State Insurance Corporation in the written statement contended that the establishments in Madras, Kerala and Karnataka are not independent, but they are branches of the Madras firm and so they are liable to be covered under the Act. If the number of employees in all the three States had been taken into consideration the coverage cannot be questioned and even in the Madras unit the employees were more than 20 and they become covered even without reference to Karnataka and Kerala. Accordingly the respondent herein will not be entitled for the reliefs claimed.

(3.) IN the present appeal, the Employees State INsurance Corporation has come forward with the contentions that the trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the persons working in the respondent's establishment in Madras, Karnataka and Kerala are not liable to be considered together for deciding the question of coverage under the Act and the Court below erred in holding that even so far as the Madras Establishment is concerned the number of employees is less than 20. The Court below failed to see that the respondent's establishments at Karnataka and Kerala are not independent units, but branches of the head office at Madras and even in the Madras office more than 20 employees are working. IN this connection the Court below failed to take into consideration the definition of 'immediate employer' as stated in Sec.2(13) of the Employees State INsurance Act. Having regard to the facts the stockists in the branches will come under the definition of 'immediate' employer' and such fact had been clearly established by the reports submitted by R.W.1 and accordingly it is contended that the establishments at Madras as well as in Karnataka and Kerala are liable to be covered under the Act. The definition of 'employee' given in Sec. 2(9) of the Employees' State INsurance Act also covers the persons employed for wages not only in an establishment or a factory, but elsewhere also. Accordingly it has been prayed that the petition filed by the respondent herein ought to have been dismissed.