JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J.:— Law is essentially the formal expression of the regulation of economic relations in society. That is the key note thought in this case, where the core question is: who is an employee? Secondly, to decide the meaning of a welfare measure a feeling for the soul of the measure is a surer guide than meticulous dissection with lexical tools alone.

2. The definitional amplitude of employee in section 2 (9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is the sole contentious issue canvassed by counsel at the bar. We have heard Shri Chitale for the appellant and the learned Attorney General for the respondent-Corporation at some length, because a decision by this court as to the width of the definition and consequential fallout of statutory obligations may cover a considerable number of establishments. We have granted leave to appeal on that basis and now proceed to study the anatomy of employee as defined in section 2(9) of the Act.

3. A brief factual narration may help get a hang of the case. The High Court, before which the present appellants had filed these appeals, has summarised the facts succinctly thus:

"The appellants are owners of theatres in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, where films are exhibited. Within the same premises as the theatre, in every case, there is a canteen and a cycle stand. The canteen and the cycle stand are leased out to contractors under instruments of lease. The contractors employ their own servants to run the canteen and the cycle stand. In regard to persons so employed by the contractors, the owners of the theatres were treated as Principal Employers and notices of demand were issued to them calling upon them to pay contribution under the Employees State Insurance Act. Thereupon the owners of theatres filed application under S. 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act before the Employees Insurance Court for a declaration that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to their theatres and that they were not liable to any contribution in respect of the persons employed in the canteens and cycle-stands attached to the theatres.

4. The Insurance Court, on a consideration of the relevant lease deeds and other evidence, noticed the following features in regard to the running of the canteens:-

"(1) All these canteens are within the premises of the cinema theatres. (2) A few of these canteens have access directly from the abutting roads whereas the other canteens can be reached only through the open space inside the cinema theatres. (3) The persons running the canteens are themselves responsible for equipping the canteens with the necessary furniture and for providing the required utensils. (4) The Managements of all these Cinema theatre pay the electricity charges due in respect of these canteens. (5) The persons working in these canteens are employed only by the contractors or tenants who run the canteens and they alone are responsible for the salaries payable to the persons. (6) The managements of the cinema theatres have absolutely no supervisory control over the persons employed in these canteens. (7) These canteens have to be run only during the show hours. This is made abundantly clear by Exhibits p-7 to p-10 and in the face of the recitals contained in these agreements, I am not prepared to accept P. W. 1s evidence that the tenants of these canteens are at liberty to run them at other times also. In particular Exhibit p-10 provides that the lessee shall run the business only during the show hours and that it shall be closed as soon as the cinema shows are closed. (8) A few of the persons working in the canteens are allowed inside the auditorium during the interval for vending eatables and beverages. They can enter the auditorium a few minutes before the interval and can remain inside the auditorium for a few minutes after the interval. (9) It is seen from Ex-p. 10 that the management of the cinema theatre had reserved to