REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, MADRAS, ETC. ETC. versus SOUTH INDIA FLOUR MILLS (P) LTD. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1986] 2 S.C.R. 863 · Decided: 29-04-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

REGIOIW. DllF.C\'Oa, WLOYEl'.S 51'!'1'1'.: lNSU\WICE 
COIU'ORATION, MADRAS, ln'C. ln'C. 
v. 
soom INDIA PLOIJ'R MIUS (P) LID. ln'C. ln'C. 
APRIL 29, 1986 
[V, BALAKRISHNA EfVJ)l AND MURARI MOHAN DUTT, JJ.] 
863 
Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Section 2(9) -
'employee' -
'work of the factory' -
interpretation of -
ca~ual employees - whether fall within purview of Act. 
~ 
The respondent-co1111>any in Civil Appeal No, 601 of 1976 
is engaged in ~tlling wlleat into wheat products in its flour 
t llll,ll, It cQll!llll!nced the construction of another buU<\ing in the 
CQlllPOund pf the existing factory for the expansion of the 
f4ctory and engaged workmen for such construction on daily 
w11ge 
basis. 
The 
appellant-Corporation 
Cl!lle<\ 
upon 
the 
respondent-company to .,.k.e contribution in respect of the 
work!Ql!n emplo:ved for the construction work of the factory 
buil<\tng as required by the El!lployees State Insurance Act, 
1948. 
. 
The respondent-company disputed its liability and filed 
a petition under Art. 
226. 
A Single Judge allowing the 
petition to()k the view that the persons employed in the 
construction of a new unit of the factory were not employees 
!If.thin the meaning of the definiUon of the ter111 'employee' 
·-4 under s. 2(9) of the Act. 
II.. 
On appeal by the appel1ant.-Corporation, a Division Bench 
~ relying upon an earller decision of that Court in l'.llplayees 
St:JJte ID8Urance Corporation v. Gllllnall!>ik.ai Mills Ltd., [ 1974] 
2 LW 530 dismissed the appeal and held that construction 
workers being causal employees. do not come within the purview 
of the Act. 
The connected appeals and the special leave petitions 
~are based on similar facts and involve a co111110n question of 
law. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
A 
864 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986 J 2 S.C. R. 
Allowing 
the 
appeals 
and 
appellant-Corporation the Court. 
petitions 
of 
the + 
HELD : 
1. The Act is a piece of social security 
legislation enacted 
to provide for certain benefits to 
employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment 
B 
injury. [871 F] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
2. Casual employees are employees within the meaning of, 
the term 'employee' as defined in s. 2(9) of the Act andf 
accordingly come within the purview of the Act. 
Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board v. l!llployees' 
State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad, 
[1977] 
1 LW 54, t 
llegl.onal DI.rector, ESIC, Bangalore v. llavangere Cotton Mills, 
[ 1977] 2 LLJ 404 and Employees' State Insurance Corporation,+ 
Ouuidigarh v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., [1980] 
2 Lab. 
I.e. 
1064, relied upon. 
Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Ghanubikai 
Mills Ltd., [1974] 2 LW 530, overruled. 
Royal Talldes, Hyderabad v. l!llployees' State Insurance 
Corporation, [1978] 4 sec 204, referred to. 
3. The definition of the term "e~loyee" under s. 2(9) 
of the Act is very wide. It includes within it any person 
employed on any work incidental or preliminary to or connected 
... 
with the work of the factory or establishment. It is difficult 
to enumerate the different types of work which may be said to~ 
be incidental or preliminary to or connected with the work of 
the factory or establishment. [871 B-C] 
4, In the instant cases, the additional buildings have, 
been constructed for the expansion of the factories in 
question. It is because of these additional buildings that the 
existing factories will be expanded and consequently, there 
will be increase in the production that is to say increase in 
the work 
of 
the 
factories 
concerned. 
So 
the work 
of 
construction of additional buildings has a link with the work.a..~ 
of the factories. It cannot, therefore be said that th~ 
construction work has no connection with the work or the 
purpose of the factories. [871 C-E] 
y 
E.S.I. CORPN. v. SOUTH FLOUR MILLS [DUTT, J. l 
865 
5. The expression 'work of the factory' should also be 
understood 
0in the sense of any work necessary for the 
expansion of the factory or establishment for augmenting or 
increasing the work of the factory or establishment. Such work 
is incidental or preliminary to or connected with the work of 
the factory or establishment. [873 A-BJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Ci vi.l Appeal No. 801 of 
1976 Etc. 
From the judgment and Order dated ll.12.1973 of the 
Madras High Court in Writ appeal No. 288 of 1970. 
V.C. 
Mahajan, 
Dr. 
Y.S. 
Chitale, 
Miss 
Kitty 
Kumaramangalam, 
Gi rish Chandra, S. Ramasubramaniam, 
D. 
N. 
Gupta, N.S. Das Baha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.