LexTHE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HASSAN CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETY UNION LIMITED versus THE ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2010] 5 S.C.R. 232 A :ypfl~~MWNAGl~G' DIRECTOR7 HASSAN~CO~O'PERA'flvEot .... :~l(K PRODUCER':S·SOCIETY UNION LIMITED. , J =·~··. ,~,,··, ~-· -. ·~1 ·: ·;; v.~· ... THE ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES . STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION B (Civil Appeal No. 3816 of 2010) , APRIL 26; 2010 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.) C Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948-·ss. 45A and 2(9) ~ Employee - Payment of ES/ contributions - Co-operative Milk Producer's Societies engaged in purchase of milk and pasteurization of the same - Workers employed by contractors in performance of contract 'awarded to them for D tra_nsporlation of milk·:_ Liability of Milk societies to pay ES/ contribution in respect of the workers - Held: Not liable - Workers employed by contractors in performance of contract awarded to them for transportation of milk, not covered by the definition of 'employee' uls. 2(9) - No evidence to show that E workers who did loading and unloading of milk cans were directly employed by Milk Societies - Also they are not employed on the premises of Milk Societies - Said workers did not work under the supervision of Milk Societies . F Words and phrases: Expression 'supervision' - Meaning of - In the context of s. 2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The appellants Co-operative Milk Producer's G Societies, namely HCMPSU Ltd. and BURDCMPS Union, were engaged in purchase of milk and pasteurization of the same. The appellant awarded contract for transportation of milk for a specific period at a particular rate to the contractor. The contractor employed workers H 232 M.D., HASSAN COO. MILK PRODUCER'S SOCT. UNION LTD. v. 233 ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.l.C. for· the same. The inspection of the. appellant's A establishment was carried out. The concerned authority passed an order uls. 45A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 calling upon the appellants to pay contribution in respect of workers employed for transportation and procurement of milk together with B interest. The appellant challenged the order before the Employees' State Insurance Court and the same was dismissed. The High Court upheld the order. Hence the appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court c HELD: 1.1 Merely being employed in connection with the work of an establishment, in itself, does not entitle a person to be an 'employee'; he must not only be employed in connection with the work of the D establishment but also be shown to be employed in one or other of the three categories mentioned in s. 2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. [Para 17) [251-A- B] E Royal Talkies, Hyderabad and Others v. Employees State Insurance Corporation (1978) 4 SCC 204, relied on. Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corpn., Madras v. South India Flour Mills (P) Ltd. (1986) 3 SCC 238; Kirloskar Brother Ltd. v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation (1996) 2 SCC 682; Rajakamal Transport and Another v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad (1996) 9 SCC 644; Transport Corporation of India. v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Another (2000) 1 SCC 332; Mis. Saraswat Films v. Regional Director, E. S. I. Corporation Trichur JT 2002 (Suppl 1) SC 454, referred to. 1.2. It is not the case of any of the parties nor there is any evidence to show that the persons who did loading F G H 234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 5 S.C.R. A and unloading were directly employed by the appellants. Section 2(9)(i) is, therefore clearly not attracted as it . covers the workers who are directly employed by the principal employer. Clause (ii) of s. 2(9) requires either (a) that the person to be an employee should be employed B on the premises of the factory or establishment, or (b) that the work is done by the person employed under the supervision of the principal employer or his agent on work which is ordinarily part of the factory or establishment or which is preliminary to the work carried c on in or incidental to the purpose of the factory or establishment. The expression "on the premises of the factory or establishment" comprehends. presence of the . persons on the premises of the factory or establishment for execution of the principal activity of the industrial 0 establishment and not casual or occasional presence. [Para 18] [251-C-F] 1.3. For the purposes of loading and unloading the milk cans, the truck driver and loaders enter the premi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.