The ESI Corporation demanded from the respondent companypany companytributions in respect of the said workers for the period from July 1, 1963 to September 30, 1967.
In the Special Leave Petition Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT, J. Civil Appeal No.
C. Mahajan, Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Miss Kitty Kumaramangalam, Girish Chandra, S. Ramasubramaniam, D. N. Gupta, N.S. Das Bahal, Miss Sushma Ralhan, D.N. Gupta and V. Subba Rao for the appearing parties.
819 NL of 1976 have been preferred by Special Leave by the Employees State Insurance Corporation, hereinafter referred to as ESI Corporation.
801 of 1976 and Civil Appeal No.
It is number disputed that the mill of the respondent companypany is a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act, 1948.
In or about the middle of 1964, the respondent companypany companymenced the companystruction of another building in the companypound of the existing factory for the expansion of the factory and engaged workmen for such companystruction on daily wage basis.
In Civil Appeal No.
801 of 1976 Etc.
In that view of the matter, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.
The ESI Corporation called upon the respondent companypany to make companytribution in respect of the workmen employed for the companystruction work of the factory building as required by the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
From the judgment and Order dated 11.12.1973 of the Madras High Court in Writ appeal No.
Before we indicate thhe question of law we may state a few facts.
819 NL of 1976, the respondent companypany, Shri Sakhti Textiles Pvt.
The appeal preferred by the ESI Corporation was dismissed.
In Civil Appeal No.
The ESI Corporation has also filed Special Leave Petition Nos.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Indeed, by an order of this Court the Special Leave Petitions were directed to be heard along with Civil Appeal No.
1143 1145 of 1978, the respondent companypanies owning the textile mills workers for the companystruction of additional factory buildings.
The respondent companypany moved the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution against the said demand.
Accordingly, the respondent companypany expanded its mill, that is the factory, by putting up of new buildings and, for that purpose, the companypany had to employ a large number of workers.
These appeals and the Special Leave Petition raise a companymon question of law and, as such, they have been heard together.
On appeal by the ESI Corporation against the order of the Employees State Insurance Court a Division Bench of the Madras High Court took the view that employment of workers for putting up of additional buildings for the purpose of companymencing manufacturing process would number be employment incidental or preliminary to or companynected with the work of the factory and, accordingly, the workers employed for the purpose of companystruction of additional buildings were number employees within the meaning of section 2 9 of the Act.
1134 1145 NL of 1978.
801 of 1976.
Ltd., was granted an additional spindleage.
Hence the ESI Corporation has filed these Special Leave Petitions which, as aforesaid, have been heard along with the above appeal.
288 of 1970.
801 of 1976, the respondent companypany, South India Flour Mills P Ltd., is engaged in milling wheat into wheat products in its flour mill.
