Casual employees are not covered under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.

1. This is an appeal from an order of Ramamurti, J., dismissing a civil miscellaneous appeal under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. The learned Judge was of the view that casual employees were not within the purview of the Act. The correctness of this view is the only question in the appeal. The respondent is a limited liability company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of cotton yarn. In the course of inspection of its books, the Insurance Inspector found a large debit of about Rs. 9,000/- which represented wages paid to certain employees. It is not in dispute—and it has never been at any stage—that these employees were casual employees engaged for whitewashing and effecting repairs to the factory buildings. The Regional Director issued a demand on the respondent on March 19, 1962, that the employers contribution in respect of these workers should be paid, Those are all the facts which we know from the record.

2. The term ‘employee’ as defined by S. 2(9) read by itself, appears to us to be wide enough to cover casual employees as well. A person will be an employee, if he is employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory or establishment which is governed by the Act, or if he is directly employed by the principal employer on any work of or incidental or preliminary to or connected with the work of the factory or establishment, or if he is employed by or though an immediate employer on the premises of the factory or establishment or if his services are temporarily lent or let on hire to the principal employer by the person with whom the person whose services are so lent or let on hire has entered into a contract of service. The term also includes any person employed for wages connected with the administration of factory or establishment or any part, department or branch thereof or with the purchase of raw materials for, or the distribution or sale of the products of, the factory or establishment. The definition also expressly excludes certain categories of persons. The meaning of factory’ has also been set out in the Act. The two expressions ‘employee’, and ‘factory’, read together and in the light of each other, lend themselves to the view, which is urged for the appellant, the Employees State Insurance Corporation, that casual employees too would be within the purview of the term ‘employee’.

3. But, having regard to the purpose of the Act and the other specific provisions therein, we are inclined to think that the Act is not intended to apply to casual employees. The Act provides for certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and certain other matters. The provisions in Chap. II deal with setting up of Employees State Insurance Corporation and its administration and Chap. III, with finance and audit of the Corporation. S. 38 in Chap. IV dealing with contribution, says that, subject to the provisions of the Act, all employees in factories or establishments to which the Act applies shall be insured in the manner provided by the Act. The contribution payable under S. 39(1) is of two-fold liability, that is to say, both the employer as well as the employee are liable to pay contribution to the Corporation. The contribution so made is the price for the cover of the employees concerned in respect of sickness, maternity, employment injury and other matters. We understand from S. 47 that sickness benefit will not be available to the casual employees in question, because under that provision a person shall be qualified to claim benefit for sickness during any benefit period, if during the corresponding contribution period weekly contributions in respect of him were payable for not less than 30 weeks. The proviso also seems to limit the availability of benefit only in certain circumstances. ‘Benefit period’ as defined means such period, being not less than 25 but not exceeding 27 consecutive weeks or six consecutive months corr