The main legal point established is that the liability for ESI contribution is determined based on the supervision and control exercised by the employer over the workers, as defined in the Act.

A. K. SHRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THE order passed in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of connected two miscellaneous appeals i. e. , M. A. No. 768/2003 national India Rubber Works Ltd. , Katni v. The Employees State Insurance Corporation and Another and M. A. No: 606/2003 (National India Rubber Works Ltd. , Katni v. Employees State Insurance Corporation and another.)

( 2 ) THE instant appeal, has been filed under section 82 of the Employees State insurance act, 1948; (in short "the Act" ). The appellant company is registered under the Indian companies Act, 1926 having its registered office at Katni and is also having a factory. The appellant company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of articles made of Rubber used in surgical, medical and Laboratory, Soda water Accessories and also article which are used in various industrial units such as Vehicle factory, Jabalpur. Ordnance Factory, Jabalpur iti, Railway etc.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the appellant in its factory premises, there are various process of manufacturing, mixing, moulding, extruding, vulcanizing, buffing etc. end there are approximately 200 number of workers working in the factory premises. Admittedly, the provisions of the Act are applicable to the workers in the company premises engaged by the appellant company and according to the learned counsel, the company has been regularly depositing its contribution arising out of the liability under the Act with respect of their workers employed in the factory for last several years.

( 4 ) THE manufacturing process in the factory starts from mixing of raw rubber with chemicals. Thereafter, the mixture gets through different processes known as moulding, extruding, vulcanizing and after which the product undergo finishing process and then packed and dispatched to its destiny. All these processes are being carried out in the factory premises of company connected with the work of the factory, contribution for the workers engaged therein have been regularly and sincerely paid by the company to the respondent corporation.

( 5 ) THE contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the demand notice which has been given in regard to the cutting and polishing of the rubber items which was challenged in the ESI Court and which has also been filed as Annexure A-2 to A-4 in this Court is without jurisdiction because in regard to the cutting and polishing the rubber item is being given on contract basis to the different contractors and the company has no connection in that regard. The company has also no supervision in that regard. The contractors engage their own workers to carry out the work and after cutting and polishing the items, the same is given to the appellant company and therefore since the appellant company is not supervising the work done by the employees of the contractors, therefore, the appellant company would not come under the ambit and sweep of "immediate employer" in terms of section 2 (13) of the said Act. It has also been put forth by learned counsel for appellant that those contractors' employees would not come under the ambit and sweep of definition of "employee" as envisaged under Section 2 (9) of the said Act. By strongly placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in C. E. S. C Ltd. and others v. Subhash Chandra Bose and Others, air 1992 SC 573 : (1992) 1 SCC 441 :

1992-I-LLJ-475, it has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the ordinary dictionary sense "to supervise" means to direct or oversee the performance of operation of an activity and to oversee it, watch over and direct. It is work under eye and gaze of someone who can immediately direct a corrective and tender advise. The contention of learned counsel is that since all these activities are not being done, by the appellant company and since these activities are done totally by the contractors, therefore, the employees of the contractors cannot be said to be the employees of the appellant company and their ESI contr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document