9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of the term "employee" under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 in the context of construction workers involved in building additional structures for textile mills. Analysis: The Employees' State Insurance Corporation filed three appeals challenging a judgment that construction workers involved in building additional factory buildings for textile mills should be considered "employees" under the Employees' State Insurance Act. The construction workers were hired to construct extra spindles and expand production. The question was whether these workers fell within the statutory definition of "employee." The District Judge initially ruled in favor of considering them employees, but Venkataraman, J., in a common judgment, held otherwise. The Judge analyzed the definition of "employee" under Section 2(9) of the Act and relied on previous decisions. However, a Bench of the Court had ruled that such construction workers do not qualify as employees under the Act. Therefore, the Corporation's appeals were to be dismissed based on this ruling. Venkataraman, J., remanded two cases for further inquiry by the District Judge as the additional buildings constructed included structures like workers' rest houses and creches. The Judge believed these structures served all factory workers and deemed the construction workers as employees engaged in work connected with the factory. However, the Court disagreed, stating that the work of the factory was yarn production, and construction workers building additional structures had no direct nexus with the manufacturing process. Unlike attendants or watchmen, their work was not incidental to the factory's operations. The completion of the buildings was when they became relevant to the factory, and the construction workers' role ended. Therefore, the Court set aside the direction for further inquiry and dismissed all three appeals by the Corporation without costs.
|
