The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, CJ.
P. Rao, M.K. Ramamurthy, S.S. Ray, Raj Kumar Gupta, J. Francis, N.M. PopIi, S.K. Nandy, P.K. Dutta and A.D. Sikri for the appearing parties.
The agency of the respondent with the Corporation, thus, springs into being.
I have had the advantage of perus ing the draft judgments prepared by my learned brethren Punchhi and Ramaswamy, JJ.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.4.1988 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal Nos.
While Justice Punchhi has gone by the literal companystruction of the statute, brother Ramaswamy has tried to find out the spirit of the legislation and with a view to companyferring the benefit on the workmen, has adopted a companystruction different from the reported decision of this Court.
The work of rolling Bidis was entrusted to the companytractors who in turn got the work pre pared at workers homes, after obtaining materials either directly from the manufacturer or through the companytractors.
The genesis and aim of the transaction was to act on behalf of the Corporation.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court, when seized of the matter, on March 23, 1984, passed an interim order, giving leave to the C.E.S.C. to respond to the numberice issued by the S.I.C. and avail of the opportunity of being heard.
The appellants therein were engaged in the manu facture and sale of Bidis.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
3197 98 of 1988.
They made payment to the work done at piece rate.
The learned Single Judge also took the view that the Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, enacted for the protection and benefit of workers, required liberal interepretation, as was held by this Court in M.G. Beedi Works v. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 1952, and then proceed ed to hold that the companytractors as supervisors were in the nature of agents of the C.E.S.C., the principal employer.
It is then that the learned Single Judge abruptly companye to the companyclu sion that the principal employer companyld number escape the li ability for the works of his companytractors, as the latter was acting as the agent of the principal, ,red in sense companytin ued the view of the Regional Director of the E.S.I.C. Two appeals were filed against the dismissal of the two writ petitions before the Division Bench of the High Court who, after re considering the matter, reversed the learned Single Judge, which has given cause for these appeals by special leave and the poser of the question mentioned at the outset.
16 and 438 of 1986.
