The short question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner who runs a handloom as well as power-loom factory is a person who is hound to make a contribution under the Employees’ State Insurance Act for the employees in his establishment. The petitioner took up the stand that in his establishment there were no employees as defined in section 2 (9) of the Act XXXIV of 1948, the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, that what obtained between himself and the workers in his factory was only a contract for service and not a contract of service and therefore he was not bound to pay contribution in respect of the workers under the aforesaid Act. But the Employees’ State Insurance authorities rejected his contention and held that he was liable to pay the contribution under the Act. Against the order of the Regional Director of the Insurance Corporation demanding payment of contribution the petitioner filed an appeal under section 75 of the Act in the Court of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Madras, who confirmed the order of the Director. Aggrieved against that order the petitioner has come to this Court for relief under