JUDGMENT - (1) This is an appeal under S. 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, (Act No. 34 of 1948), from an order passed by the Employees Insurance Court, Bombay. The question which arises in the appeal is whether the appellants Messrs. Bank Silver Company, are a "factory" within the meaning of Section 2 clause (12) of the Act. The appellants filed an application in the Employees Insurance Court for a declaration that they were not covered by the Employees State Insurance Act and that the partners of the appellant firm were not "employees" within the meaning of Section 2 clause (9) of the Act. The application has been dismissed and this appeal is directed against that order.

(2) The facts which are necessary for the decision of the question raised on this appeal are admitted. The appellants are a partnership firm owing an establishment in which articles of silver are manufactured. The firm employs 18 workers in its establishment and, in addition, four of the six partners of the firm also work in the establishment. The respondents, the Employees State Insurance Corporation, contended that the workers working in the establishment of the appellants were covered by the Employees State Insurance Act, and called upon the appellants to make the employers contribution under the Act. The appellants, on the other hand, contended that they employed less than 20 persons and that, therefore, the Act was not applicable to them. They, therefore, filed the application in the Employees Insurance Court for a decision of the disputed question.

(3) Section 1 clause (4) of the Employees State Insurance Act provides that the Act shall apply in the first instance to all factories including factories belonging to the Government, other than seasonal factories. Section 2 clause (12) of the Act defines a factory in so far as is material, to mean any premises including the precincts thereof whereon twenty or more persons are working or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power or is ordinarily so carried on. It is not disputed that a manufacturing process is carried on with the aid or power in the establishment of the appellants. The narrow question which arises is whether "twenty or more persons are working" in the establishment. The contention of the appellants, however, is that the word persons which occurs in clause (12) of Section 2 of the Act must be construed to mean "employees" and cannot cover persons who, being proprietors of a concern, work therein. In other words, the contention of the appellants is that for the purposes of determining whether their establishment is a factory within the meaning of Section 2 clause (12) of the Act, the partners of the firm who work in the establishment must be excluded from consideration and only those persons can be taken into account who work in the establishment as employees of the appellants.

(4) I am unable to accept the contention advanced by Mr. Chitale on behalf of the appellants. Section 2 clause (12) defines a "factory" not by reference to the number of "employees" who work in the factory but by reference to "persons" who work in the factory. If Mr. chitale were right, nothing would have been easier for the Legislature than to use in Section 2 clause (12) of the Act language similar to that used in section 2 clause (m) of the Factories Act (Act 63 of 1948). Section 2 clause (m) of the Factories Act defines a "factory" not by reference to the "persons" who work in an establishment but by reference to the number of "workers" who work therein. It provides, in so far as a in material, that a factory means premises wherein a certain number of workers" are working and in any part of which a manufacturing process is carried on. "Worker" is defined in Section 2 Clause (1) of the Factories Act to mean a person "employed" in a manufacturing process, or in certain other process.

(5) It is contended by Mr. C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document