Casual workers are entitled to the benefits provided under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the Judge, employees Insurance Court, Hyderabad, in E. I. Case No. 9 of 1972. Andhra pradesh State Electricity Board who is the petitioner in the lower Court is the appellant herein.

( 2 ) THE Employees State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad, respondent, demanded the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,646-80 towards employers special contribution and a sum of Rs. 3,452-84 towards employees contribution for the period from 1st October, 1968 to 31st march, 1971. But the appellant failed to deposit the same and hence the respondent-Corporation moved the district Collector, Karimnagar to recover these amounts under the Revenue Recovery act as arrears of land revenue.

( 3 ) THE District Collector, therefore, issued a show cause notice on 26th April, 1972 to the appellant calling upon them to explain as to why the property of the appellant should not be attached for the realisation of the said amounts. The appellant submitted an explanation stating that the workers for whose sake the demand was made towards the aforesaid contributions are casual workers and hence they cannot avail of any of these benefits and the demand is, therefore, illegal.

( 4 ) AS against this contention, the respondent-Corporation contended in its counter that the benefits envisaged under the Act enured to the casual labourers also since they would come within the purview of section 2 (9) of the Employees State insurance Act, 1948 and the demand is, therefore, lawful and valid.

( 5 ) THE learned Judge took into consideration the provisions of section 2 (9) and also a decision of a single Judge of this Court in G. M. A. No. 359 of 1967 dated 18th March, 1969 in which it was held that section 2 (9) of the Act is comprehensive and does not warrant the inference that a person cannot be deemed to be an employee unless his services are engaged for not less than a particular period and section 39 (4) of the Act visualises the possibility of employment even for less than a week when it lays down among other things that where an employee is employed for part of a week the contribution shall fall due on such day as may be specified in the regulations and finally held that the persons employed even for a short period would be entitled to the benefits of the Chapter V of the act based on the contribution made or in respect of such employees. In the light of this decision, the learned Judge rejected the contention of the appellant and held that the casual workers were also entitled to the benefits provided by the Act,

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED with the said order, the electricity Board which is the petitioner before the Tribunal preferred this appeal.

( 7 ) OUR learned brother A. V. Krishna rao, J. , after hearing the arguments addressed by Sri Anantha Babu, learned counsel for the appellant, felt that the questions raised are of sufficient importance and deserve consideration of a division Bench. He, therefore, wanted the matter to be referred to a Bench for authoritative pronouncement on these questions. Thus the matter came before us.

( 8 ) SRI Anantha Babu, the learned Counsel for the appellant, contends that the casual labourers employed by the appellant- board do not come under the definition of employee under section 2 (9) of the employees State Insurance Act. According to him, for the employee who seeks to avail the benefits given by the Act should be a regular labourer but not casual labourer, since the continuity of service is an essential pre-requisite which is absent in the case of a casual labourer. He also contends that the scope, scheme and purpose of the Act make it abundantly clear that casual employees are excluded from the definition of the employee. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, andhra Pradesh v. T. S. Hart Haran, and a decision of this Court in Nazeena Traders ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commiss