R. Rajendra Babu, J.

The important question that had come up for consideration was whether the E.S.I. Corporation could claim contribution from the employers in respect of the workers deployed by the Committee constituted under S. 18 of the Headload Workers Act for doing headload work in establishments.

2. Sri. N. Babu Rao, the respondent herein was conducting the business of processing of pepper and was engaging headload workers for doing the headload works. The E.S.I. Corporation demanded contribution in relation to the period from 3/1992 to 9/1992 and from 10/1992 to 3/1993. The respondent challenged the above order before the E.I. Court in I.C. No. 118/93 and prayed for a declaration that the establishment could not be covered under the E.S.I. Act and Scheme. The E.I. Court allowed the above petition partly. Aggrieved by the above order, the E.S.I. Corporation had filed this appeal.

3. The respondent was running an establishment of processing of pepper. He had attached headload workers for doing the headload works. When there was more work, he used to require the service of headload workers from the Committee constituted under S. 18 of the Headload Workers Act. Accordingly, the Committee was deploying headload workers to the establishment of the respondent and was collecting the wages and other amounts including an amount of Rs. 25 in excess of the wages for the implementation of the benefits under the Welfare Scheme.

4. The learned counsel for the E.S.I. Corporation submitted that the respondent being an employer coming within the definition of the principal employer under S.2(17) of the E.S.I. Act was liable to pay contribution to the E.S.I. Corporation in respect of the employees deployed by the Committee. It was further argued that the Committee was the immediate employer or contractor and the respondent was the principal employer as defined under the E.S.I. Act. In view of the above argument it would be convenient to consider the definition of employer under the S. 2(i) of the Headload Workers Act. S. 2(i) reads:

“(i) in relation to a headload worker engaged by or through a contractor, the principal employer:

(ii) in relation to a headload worker who is not employed by any employer or contractor, the committee constituted under S. 18; and

(iii) in relation to any other headload worker, the person who has ultimately control over the affairs of the establishment in or for which the headload worker is employed and included any other person to whom the affairs of such establishment are entrusted, whether such establishments”

The above definition would make it clear that the Committee constituted under S. 18 of the Headload Workers Act would be the employer in respect of headload workers registered before the Committee in an area where the Scheme was made applicable. Clause (i) of S. 2(i) deals with the employer who engages the headload worker directly and through a contractor and if the worker is engaged through a contractor then such employer becomes the principal employer. A contractor is defined under S. 2(g) of the Headload Workers Act. The above definition does not take in a Committee constituted under S. 18 of the Act as a Contractor. The definition of employer in clause (ii) of S. 2(i) “in relation to a headload worker who is not employed or engaged by an employer or Contractor” would exclude the Committee being treated as an immediate employer but the Committee has to be treated as an employer, so far as the headload workers deployed by the Committee are concerned. The Committee cannot be treated as a contractor too, but it is a body constituted under the Statute and is an employer under the Headload Workers Act. It is made more clear in Paragraph 10 of the Scheme. Para 10 reads:

“10. Every headload worker shall be deemed to be employed by the Committee of that area and his work shall be supervised by the person for whom the workers have been allotted, as well as by any officer of the Committee”.

When the Statute