The determination of supervision of job work under the Employee's State Insurance Act influenced the court's decision to dismiss the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 82 of Employee’s State Insurance Act, to set aside the order passed by the Employees Insurance Court/Principal Labour Court, Chennai in E.I.O.P. No. 197 of 2005 dated 24.08.2012.

1. The appellant herein is the respondent in E.I.O.P. No. 197 of 2005, before the Employees Insurance Court/Principal Labour Court, Chennai, which was filed by the respondent herein/petitioner under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act to set aside the impugned order dated 22.07.2005.

2. After full trial, the Employees Insurance Court/Principal Labour Court, Chennai, set aside the impugned order by allowing the E.I.O.P. No. 197 of 2005, dated 24.08.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/respondent preferred this appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant contested the appeal on the following grounds:

(i) The learned Judge erred in holding that the said Act would not apply to the employees working under the contractor doing job work without considering the Section (2)13 of E.S.I. Act, which includes the contractor who is doing job work of the principal employer.

(ii) The trial Court also failed to appreciate that subsequent amendments which includes all the workers or employees of an establishment to be benefited under the Act.

(iii) The trial Court failed to consider that the contractor is doing the job work of the principal employer. But it is a part of the work of the principal employer’s factory, which is incidental to the purpose of the factory establishment. Totally, the appellant contended that the contractor is doing job work on behalf of the principal employer within the premises of the principal employer’s factory. So, the principal employer is bound to pay the contribution as required under the said Act.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner contended that he is doing the business of manufacturing house hold utensils including gas stove, besides they give job work such as Idli plates making, pressing, cutting, polishing, minikadai pressing and polishing to outside independent parties who execute the work in their premises with their men, using their equipments without the supervision of the respondent/ petitioner or its agents. Thereby, he totally denied that the job work was done by outsiders with his supervision.

5. After full enquiry, the Principal Labour Court concluded that the respondent/petitioner has given job work to two industries and they have down the works outside the respondent’s premises with their equipments, thereby the Principal Labour Court concluded that, the contribution levied by the appellant Corporation under Section 45-A of the E.S.I. Act, is unsustainable. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the E.S.I. Corporation, Chennai.

6. On a perusal of records, it is seen that on the side of the respondent /petitioner PW-1 was examined and on the side of the appellant/respondent RW-1 and RW-2 were examined and exhibits Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4 were marked before the trial Court.

7. It is admitted fact that the respondent/petitioner is doing manufacturing of utensils and house hold articles under the name and style of M/s. Premier Home Appliances. As per the contention of the respondent/petitioner, he gave job to two outsider companies and also not supervised by him. To that effect the respondent/petitioner was examined as PW-1. The two outsider industries names are M/s. S.P. Metal Processors (Industries) and Sama Industries. As per the contention of the appellant corporation, they were two industries, which are under the supervision of the respondent/petitioner, and hence they are liable to pay the contribution. But on perusal of reply given by the respondent/petitioner was marked as Ex.P.2 the petitioner clearly stated that the above job works were given to two independent industries with bill numbers and also clearly contended that they are the outside parties having