Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO, R.S. BACHAWAT AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ
1. The Nagpur Electric Light and Power Co., Ltd. (In C. A. No. 491 of 1965), 2. The Employees of the Nagpur Electric Light and Power Co., Ltd. (In C. A. No. 492 of 1965) Appellants
Versus
1. The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation (In C. A. No. 491 of 1965), 2. The Nagpur Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd., and another, (In C. A. No.492 of 1965), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 401 and 492 of 1965
D/- 2-3-1967.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General of India, (Mr. 1. N. Shroff, Advocate. with him) for Appellant (In C. A. No. 491 of 1960), Mr. A. G. Ratnaparkhi, Advocate. for Appellants (In C. A. No. 492 of 1965); Mr. Bishan Narain Senior Advocates, (M/s. M. I,. Kapur and I S. Sawhney. Advocates, with him), for Respondent (In C. A. No. 491 of 1965) and Respondent No. 2 (In C. A. No. 492 of 1965) Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate, for Respondent No. I (In C. A. No. 492 of 1965).
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE ACT - EMPLOYEES - DEFINITION - PERSONS EMPLOYED FOR WAGES IN OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK OF A FACTORY - INCLUDES PERSONS EMPLOYED IN THE FACTORY OR ELSEWHERE - PERSONS EMPLOYED IN SUB-STATIONS - ARE EMPLOYEES.
Fact of the Case:
The Nagpur Electric Light and Power Co., Ltd., occupied premises at Kamptee Road, Nagpur, where it carried on the work of transforming and transmitting electrical energy. The company did not generate electricity but maintained a receiving station where it received electrical energy in bulk from the generating station of the Maharashtra Electricity Board at Khapparkheda. The energy was then transmitted through electric supply lines to sub-stations in the city, where it was again stepped down to 400 volts by other transformers. From the sub-stations, the energy was transmitted by electric supply lines and distributed to consumers.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the company's premises constituted a factory within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, as the process of transforming electrical energy from a high to a low potential and the process of transmitting the energy through supply lines were both manufacturing processes carried on with the aid of power by means of electrical gadgets and other devices, and more than twenty persons were working on the premises.
Issues: Whether the company's premises constituted a factory within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the definition of "employee" in Section 2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, was wider than that of a "worker" in the Factories Act, 1948, and that the object of the Employees' State Insurance Act was to secure sickness, maternity, disablement, and medical benefits to employees of factories and establishments and dependents' benefits to their dependents. The court further held that the workers in question, including the clerks and the administrative staff, were engaged in connection with the work of the factory and were therefore employees within the meaning of Section 2(9)(I) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals filed by the company and the employees, holding that the workers in question were employees within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.
Judgement
BACHAWAT, J. : The question in issue in these appeals is whether certain employees of the Nagpur Electric Light and Power Co., Ltd., are employees within the meaning of S. 7(9) of the Employees State Insurance Act. 1948 (34 of 1948). The company and the employees filed two separate applications before the Employees insurance Court under S. 70 of the Act for the determination of the question. Their case is that out of the five categories of staff mentioned in appendices 1 to 5 to the company s petition, those connected with the receiving station and workshop (appendices 1 and 2) were employees within the meaning of S. 2(9), but those connected with the engineering, stores and outdoor work, meter, consumers and allocation departments and administration Appendices 3, 4 and 5) were not such employees. The Regional Director. Employees State insurance Corporations contested the applications, but he admitted that the workers of the categories mentioned in items .5 to 14 of appendix 4 and items 1, 7 and 8 of appendix 5 of appendix 5 were not employees within the meaning of S. 2 (9). The Employees; Insurance Court found that those workers and also the workers mentioned in item 12 of appendix .5 were not such employees. The correctness of this finding is not in issue in these appeals and we express no opinion on it. The categories of workers mentioned in Appendix III, items 1 -4 in Appendix IV and items 2-6 and 9-11 of Appendix V are as follows :
"Appendix III
Mains Senior: (1) assistant engineers, (a) supervisors (3) electricians, (4) overseers.
Main junior : (1) cable jointers; (2) mistries, (3) sub-mistries (4) lineman-H.T.O.H. mains, (5) mains coolies, (6) mains coolies temporary, (7) wireman temporary, (8) sub-mistries, (9) sub-station attendants.
Clerical staff: (1) clerk to asstt. engineers, (2) draughtsman, (3) mains office peons.
Stores department: (1) storekeeper, (2) asst. store-keeper, (3) clerks, (4) coolies.
Motor car staff: (1) motor drivers, (2)motor cleaners Mason.
Appendix IV
Meter senior and junior: (1) deputy meter superintendent, (2) senior meter mechanie, (3) junior meter mechanic, (4) meter testers.
Appendix V
(2). accounts department: accountant, chief cashier, asst. accountant, account clerks, clerks.
(3) Time-keeping department: group head, clerks.
(4) Filing department: group head, clerks.
(5) Typing department; Steno-typists, typists.
(6) Telephone operators.
(9) Record-keeper and daftari.
(9A) Station clerk.
(10) Motor car staff: mechanic, drivers, cleaners.
(11) Menial staff: peons, garden malies, chowkidars, sweepers, rejas temporary."
2. The Employees Insurance Court held that the aforesaid workers were employess within the meaning of S. 2 (9) of the Act. The company and the employees filed two separate appeals from this decision to the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) under S. 82 of the Act. Abhyankar, J., affirmed the finding of the Employees Insurance Court and dismissed the appeals. Letters Patent appeals from his orders were summarily dismissed by a Bench of the High Court. The company and employees have now preferred two separate appeals to this Court by special leave.
3. The Nagpur Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd., occupies certain premises at Kamptee Road, Nagpur where it carries on the work of transforming and transmitting electrical energy. The premises are located within a compound wall. Inside the premises there are several buildings, yards and open spaces. The receiving station, the workshop, the meter testing department, the engineers quarters, the general office, and stores are in different buildings inside the premises. The company does not generate electricity. It maintains a receiving station inside the premises where it receives electrical energy in bulk from the generating station of the Maharashtra Electricity Board at Khapparkheda. The energy when received is of 11000 volts. From the receiving station, the energy is either carried through electric supply lines to a transformer and is s
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
