EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE Vs. THE EMPRESS MILLS, A UNIT OF MAHARASHTRA STATE TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short, "ESI Act") questions the legality and correctness of the judgment and order, delivered in Application (ESI) 8 of 1995 by Judge, Employees State Insurance Court, Nagpur on 25.7.2006. The facts of the case, insofar as they are relevant for determining the substantial questions of law involved in the present appeal are narrated as under :

(2.) This appeal has been admitted by framing two substantial questions of law and accordingly, I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the activity of removal of coal ash was incidental to the main work of the respondent and therefore, the respondent could be safely termed as principal employer and the labourers engaged by the contractor who purchased the coal ash as the employees of the principal employer as defined under Section 2(17) and Section 2(9)(ii) of the EST Act. This is however disputed by learned counsel for the respondent who submits that the respondent has no control over the work of labourers engaged by its contractor who had purchased the coal ash and that there was no privity of contract whatsoever between the respondent and labourers of such other contractor and so, the provisions of ESI Act were at all attracted in the present case.

(3.) The substantial questions of law on which this appeal has been admitted and which are now required to be determined in the light of the arguments canvassed before me by both sides are as follows :