LexNAGPUR ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO., LTD. versus REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
NAGPUR ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO., LTD. A. v. REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, ETC. March 2, 1967 (K. N. WANCHOO, R. S. BACHAWAT AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.] Employees State Insurance Act (34 of 1948), ss. 2(9) and 2(12)- Factory, area comprised in-Company trari'sferring and transmitting elec- tricity-Workers doing non-manual work whether 'employees' within the meaning of s. 2(9), The appellant company carried on the work of transforming and transmitting electrical energy. There was dispute between the company and the respondent whether certain employees of the col1)pany like engi- neers, draughtsmen, clerks, accountants, ete. mentioned in Appendices 111, IV and V of the company's petition before the Employees' Insurance Court, were 'Employees' or not wi'hin the meaning of s. 2(9) of the Employees Insurance Ac', 1948. The Employees Insurance Court held the said workers to be employees under s. 2(9) and this finding was confirmed by the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court. The company appealed to this Court by special leave. HELD : (i) The pre.mises of the company were a factory within the meaning of the Employees St.ate Imurance Act but the High Court was wrong in laying down the proposition that every inch of the area over which the transmission lines were spread was a factory w'.thin the mean- ing of s. 2(12). The company's factory had a fixed s te and was located within the compound wall of its premises. (96 E, HJ (ii) All the employees of the disputed categories clerks or otherwise- were employed in connection with the work of the factory, that is to 'Say, in connectio11 with the work of transforming and tran~mitting elec- trical power. Some of the employees were not engaged in manual labour. But a person doing: non-manual work can be an employee with- in the meaning of s. 2(9) (i) if he is employed in connection with the work of the factory. The duties of the adm;nis•rn•ive staff are directly connected within the work of the factory. (99 C, OJ Even those employees who worked outside the factory but whose duties were connected with the work of the .- factory were employees within the meaning of s. 2(9)(i). Among such employees were to be included those att~nding to sub-stations of the factory. (100 Al Ardeshir H. Bhiwaniwala v. The State of Bomhay, [1961] 3 S.C.R. 542, State of Uttm Pradesh v. M. P. Sin~h, [19601 2 S.C.R. 605 and Employee<' State ln.rurance Corporation, Bombay v. Raman, [19571 1 L.L.J. 26.7. referrd to. CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTIOK: Civil Appeals Nos. 491 and 492 of 1965. Appeals by special leave from the orders dated September 17, 1963 of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 14 and 15 of 1963. c D E F G H NAGPUR ELECTRIC co. v. E.S.I.C. (Bachawat, !.) 93 A S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General and I. N. Shroff, for the appel· !ant (in C.A. No. 491 of 1965). A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellants (in C.A. No. 492 of 1965). Bishan Narain, M. L. Kapur and I. S. Saw/mey, for the res- B pondents Nos.I and 2 (in C.As. Nos. 491 and 492 of 1965). c D E F G H I. N .. Shrofj, for respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 492 of 1965). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by l>achawat, J. The question in issue in these appeals is whether certain ernpio)'ces of che Nagpur Elcc;ric Light & Power Co. Ltd .. arc employees within the meaning of s. 2( 9) of the Employee," State h;ur.111cc Act, ! 9-~3 ( 34 o: 19+8). 'lhc company a11d the employee; I.led two s~_parate applications before the Employees' Insurance Court unuer s. i5 of the Act for ,he determination of the que1tion. Their ca'.:e i> that out of the five categ,1ries of staff menLoncJ ia appendices 1 to 5 to the company's petition, th'"" connectcJ wit\1 the receiving stution and workshop ( appenuice< I and 2 l were employees "ithin the meaning o[ s. 2 ( 9). but \hos~ connccteJ \Vith th~ engineering, s~ore.s anJ outJoor \\·ork. n1cter. con:-1u111ers. and ,1llncation d..;par~n1enls and <.1Jn1ini~tralion ( appen- dices 3, 4 and 5) 11erc not such employees. The Regiunal Direc- tor, Employees State l nsurancc Corparation contested the applica tions. but he uJmitte'.l lhat the wmkcrs of the categories mentiond in items 5 _to 14 of arpcndix 4 and items I. 7 ai1u 8 of appendix 5 were not employees within the me:rning oi s. 2(9). The Em- ployees ln:;urancc Court found that those workers and also the worker, mentione
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.