JUDGMENT

VENKATARAMIAH, J. :-—Shri Narakesari Prakashan Ltd. and Nav Samaj Ltd., Nagpur are the appellants in the above two appeals by special leave filed under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appellants respectively are printers and publishers of newpapers known as Tarun Bharat and Nagpur Times. Their case is that their employees working for wages in the administrative and editorial sections of their respective concerns were not employees as defined in Section 2 (9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 thereinafter referred to as (the Act) prior to November 19, 1976 on which date by a notification issued under S. 1 (5) of the Act the Government of the State of Maharashtra made the Act applicable to the said employees also and that therefore they were not liable to make any contributions under the Act in respect of the said employees up to that date. They however admit their liability to make contributions during that period in respect of persons employed by them for wages in the printing presses belonging to them.

2. The dispute regarding the liability of the appellants to make contributions under the Act in respect of the members of the administrative and editorial staff arose on the Assistant Regional Director of the Employees State insurance Corporation calling upon them by notice issued on October 1, 1975 to make contributions in respect of the said members also with effect from January 28, 1968 on which date the amended definition of the expression employee in Section 2 (9) of the Act as per the Amending Act No. 44 of 1966 came into force. After the above demands were made, the appellants filed applications before the Employees Insurance Court, Nagpur under Section 75 of the Act questioning their liability to make contributions in respect of their employees working in the administrative and editorial sections of their presses during the period between January 28, 1968 and November 19, 1976. They however, did not dispute their liability in respect of the period subsequent to November 19, 1976 on which date the notification was issued under Section 1 (5) of the Act by the Maharashtra State Government. The applications were contested by the Employees State Insurance Corporation. The Employees Insurance Court allowed the applications holding that until the notification under Section 1 (5) of the Act was issued by the State Government making the Act applicable to the establishments of the appellants viz. the administrative and editorial sections of their presses, the employees working in those sections could not be considered as employees as defined by Section 2 (9) of the Act. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Employees Insurance Court, the Employees State Insurance Corporation filed appeals before the High Court of Bombay under Section 82 of the Act. The High Court allowed the said appeals holding that the employees concerned came within the definition given in Section 2 (9) of the Act and, therefore, the appellants were liable to make contributions during the relevant period in respect of them also under the Act. The appellants have filed these appeals against the judgment of the High Court.

3. Before dealing with the contentions raised by the appellants, it has to be stated that the members of the administrative staff and the editorial staff of each of the printing presses are employed by the management concerned for the purpose of carrying on the business of printing and publishing the newspaper brought out by it. The correctness of this finding of fact recorded to the above effect by the High Court is not assailed before us. The main contention of the appellants however is that since during the relevant period they had maintained a distinction between the factory sections of their printing presses and the establishment sections, which included the administrative and editorial sections of their presses, the employees in the establishment sections could not be treated as employees to whom the Act was applicable un