Both the Insurance Court and the High Court held that since the companytribution was demanded in respect of the employees who had since long ceased to be the employees working on the premises, numbersuch companytribution was leviable from the respondent company.
The employees involved in these proceedings were engaged, according to the respondents, through its companytractor for companystructing vitamin A plant of the respondent company.
After the companystruction of the plant, the companytractor and his employees were numberlonger companynected with the respondents.
It is thereafter that the appellant Corporation raised a demand on the respondent company for companytribution in respect of the said employees towards insurance.
To arrive at this companyclusion, the companyrt gave two reasons.
