9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Definition of "employee" under Section 2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. 2. Applicability of the Act to administrative and editorial staff of printing presses. 3. Liability of the appellants to make contributions under the Act for the period between January 28, 1968, and November 19, 1976. Detailed Analysis: 1. Definition of "Employee" under Section 2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948: Section 2(9) of the Act defines "employee" as any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory or establishment to which the Act applies. This includes: - Persons 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. - Persons employed by or through an immediate employer on the premises of the factory or establishment or under the supervision of the principal employer or his agent. - Persons whose services are temporarily lent or let on hire to the principal employer. The definition also includes any person employed for wages on any work connected with the administration of the 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. 2. Applicability of the Act to Administrative and Editorial Staff of Printing Presses: The appellants argued that their administrative and editorial staff were not "employees" as defined in Section 2(9) of the Act prior to the notification issued on November 19, 1976, by the Maharashtra State Government under Section 1(5) of the Act. They contended that the Act did not apply to these employees until the notification expressly brought the administrative and editorial sections within the scope of the Act. However, the Court held that the administrative and editorial staff were employed in connection with the work of the printing presses, which are factories under Section 2(12) of the Act. The Court noted that the work of the factory, being the printing and publication of a newspaper, could not be carried on without the assistance of the editorial and administrative staff. The members of the editorial staff, such as editors, news editors, sub-editors, and reporters, were integral to the functioning of the newspaper press. Similarly, the administrative staff were essential for managing the affairs of the factory. 3. Liability of the Appellants to Make Contributions under the Act for the Period Between January 28, 1968, and November 19, 1976: The appellants were called upon by the Assistant Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation to make contributions for their administrative and editorial staff effective from January 28, 1968, when the amended definition of "employee" under Section 2(9) came into force. The appellants filed applications before the Employees' Insurance Court, Nagpur, contesting their liability for the period between January 28, 1968, and November 19, 1976. The Employees' Insurance Court ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the employees in the administrative and editorial sections could not be considered "employees" under Section 2(9) until the notification under Section 1(5) was issued. However, the High Court of Bombay overturned this decision, holding that the employees concerned came within the definition of "employee" under Section 2(9) and that the appellants were liable to make contributions during the relevant period. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the members of the administrative and editorial staff were indeed employees under Section 2(9) of the Act. The Court emphasized that these employees were employed in connection with the work of the printing presses, which are factories under the Act. Therefore, the appellants were liable to make contributions for the period in question. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the administrative and editorial staff of the printing presses were employees as defined under Section 2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The demand made by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation for contributions from the appellants for the period between January 28, 1968, and November 19, 1976, was justified. The appeals were dismissed with costs.
|
