L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed under Section 82 of the Employees State insurance Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", by the appellant herein, aggrieved by the order, dated 20. 10. 1998, passed by the E. S. I. Court, in E. I. Case no. 66 of 1997.

( 2 ) THE appellant is a Limited Company, engaged in the activity of manufacturing, and supply of industrial gases. The present dispute relates to the transport of Oxygen gas manufactured, and bottled by the appellant. After the gas is manufactured, and filled in cylinders, the appellant supplies the same to its customers. While in some cases, the customers directly take the cylinders, in other cases, the appellant delivers the cylinders to its bulk customers, by engaging transport contractors.

( 3 ) ON 17. 2. 1995, the officials of the e. S. I. Corporation visited the factory of the appellant. They opined that the appellant ought to have paid contribution for the employees, engaged in transport of cylinders also. Accordingly, a notice was issued by the respondents, to the appellant. Through reply, dated 14. 6. 1995, the appellant disputed its liability. This was followed by another reply, dated 18. 9. 1995. Taking the same into account, the respondents issued a show-cause notice, dated 25. 9. 1995, calling upon the appellant to show-cause, as to why the assessment should not be made against it, in the manner proposed. Since there was no response to the same, the respondents passed an order, dated 18. 8. 1997, under section 45-A of the Act, demanding contribution of Rs. 63,573. 00 for the period from July, 1992 to October, 1995. Disputing the correctness of the same, the appellant filed E. I. Case No. 66 of 1997 before the e. S. I Court, under Section 75 (l) (g) of the act.

( 4 ) THE appellant contended that, it is not liable to make any E. S. I contribution for the employees engaged in transport of cylinders, for the reason, that they are neither employed by them, nor are under their supervision. It was alleged that the transport contract was tentative, depending on number of variables, and no particular individuals were kept at their disposal, by the transporter.

( 5 ) THE respondents on the other hand pleaded that the employees, engaged in transport of cylinders, were under the direct supervision of the appellant. They contended that the contractor entrusted with the transport of cylinders falls within the definition of "immediate employer", as defined under sub-section 13 of Section 2 of the act. Through its order under appeal, the trial Court rejected the contention of the petitioner.

( 6 ) SRI C. R. Sridharan, learned counsel for the appellant, apart from reiterating the contentions advanced by the appellant before the Trial Court, submits that before fastening any liability on the appellant, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents, to establish that the employees in question, were either working in the premises of the appellant, or were under their direct supervision. He submits that except making a casual visit, the respondents did not record any finding on any of these aspects. He contends that transporting cylinders is not at all part of the activity of the appellant. He further submits that the contractor himself was sending driver and hamalies, by engaging them on ad-hoc basis, and on daily wage basis; hence it was impossible to maintain any record thereof, or to comply with the provisions of the Act.

( 7 ) SRI B. G. Ravinder Reddy, learned standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submits that, the supply of filled cylinders, and taking return of the empty cylinders, is very much part of the activity of the appellant. He submits that the employees engaged in transport of the cylinders have invariably to enter the premises of the factory, and thereby, they fall within the definition of Section 2 (9) of the Act.

( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Counsel for the respondents have relied upon sev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document