S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Whether a person employed casually in a factory or an establishment is within the ambit of the definition of an employee as laid in Section 2 sub-section (9) of the Employees State Insurance Act ? is the somewhat meaningful question which has necessitated its consideration by the Full Bench.

2. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that in essence the answer to the aforesaid question would govern all these four appeals which will be disposed of by this single judgment.

3. To provide the necessary matrix of facts for the legal issue, it suffices to advert briefly to those in Employees State Insurance Corporation, Chandigarh v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. Ludhiana, F. A. O. No. 451 of 1978. The respondent-Mill had moved an application before the Employees State Insurance Court challenging a notice by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation requiring them to deposit certain sums of money as contribution both of the employer and the employees. The material item pertains to persons who, according to the respondent-Mill were casual labourers employed only for the construction and maintenance of the premises of its fac