The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, particularly the definition of 'employee' and 'immediate employer', and the contributions payable for casual employees.

P.A. Mohammed, J.

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'). The appellant is the Regional : Director, E.S.I. Corporation, Trichur who challenges an order passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Calicut (Industrial Tribunal, Calicut) under Section 75 of the Act. The respondent is the 'establishment' to which the provisions of the Act applies.

2. The E.S.I. Inspector conducted an inspection of the above establishment on March 14, 1984 and made a report that the respondent had paid a sum of Rs 28,682.33 as wages for the construction of the office building through a contractor. According to the Inspector, the said amount paid to the employees through the contractor is 'wages' coming within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the Act and hence the respondent is bound to pay the contribution in respect of it. Accordingly, the Inspector made a demand calling upon the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 2,007.75 as contribution for the period April 1, 1982 to March 31, 1983. Like wise a demand was made to pay Rs. 834.18 as contribution for the amount spent as wages for the maintenance and repair of the building. As against the said demands the respondent filed an application under Section 75 of the Act for determining the question whether the respondent was liable to pay the contribution as directed by the Inspector. The Court below after the enquiry set aside the demands for contribution. Being aggrieved by the said judgment the opposite party has filed this appeal.

3. The Court below considered the question whether the applicant establishment is liable to pay contribution on the amount paid to the contractor for purposes of constructing a new building and also on the amount of wages paid to casual labourers for repairs and maintenance. After placing reliance on the decision in Re-gional Director, E.S.I. Corporation v. Narahari Rao (J986 KLT 1397), the Court below held that the names of the employees and duration of their work were not noted by the Inspector. It further held that in the absence of such details it cannot be stated that those employees were regular or temporary employees. In that view of the matter the Court below came to the conclusion that the demands made by the E.S.I. Inspector for contribution were illegal and set aside the same.

4. The case of the appellant as urged in their written statement is as follows:

"Opposite party Corporation has stated in their written objection that they have noticed that the establishment had spent Rs. 28,682.33 which are found disbursed to contractor Sri Vasu and adds that the amount is wages as per Section 2(22) of the E.S.I.Act . They further contend that the employees employed through such contractor were persons falling under Section 2(9) of the E.S.I. Act and hence the applicants are liable to pay Rs. 2007.75 as contribution."

Therefore, the main question is whether the workers employed through the contractor for the construction of the office building are employees within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant while augmenting his submission places heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation v. South Indian Flour Mills (1986-II-LLJ-304). This decision was noticed by the Division Bench of this Court in Narahari Rao's case (supra). This Division Bench, however, after referring to the above case observed thus:

"The broader approach of the Supreme Court in the decision was meant to and will definitely take in a larger number of casual employees who were hitherto beyond the purview of the Act. It, however, seems to us to be essential that such persons as are meant to be taken in must be persons employed even on a casual basis; but, not persons who were engaged for specific items of work without entry into service of the employer. We do not find any departure from this basic test in the matter of determining whether a person who is not emp