P.S. Kailasam, C.J.
1. This appeal is preferred by the workmen of Hindustan Teleprinters Limited, represented by the Hindustan Teleprinters Employees' Union, Madras, against the judgment of Ismail, J., dismissing a petition filed by them for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry States, Madras and to quash the proceedings, dated 13th October, 1972 made by the said Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
2. The second respondent, namely, the Management of Hindustan Teleprinters Limited, Guindy, Madras, engaged 22 persons for putting up construction for its factory as well as staff quarters. These 22 persons were subsequently absorbed as regular employees by the second respondent. The question that arose for consideration was whether those 22 persons who were employed in putting up construction for the factory as well as staff quarters, before their absorption in the factory, were employees entitled to the benefits under the Act. The learned Judge found that those 22 persons do not answer the requirements in Section 2(f) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act (XIX of 1952). We have no hesitation in accepting the view arrived at by the learned Judge. Section 2(f) of Act XIX of 1952 runs as follows:
'employee' means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of an establishment, and who gets his wages directly or indirectly from the employer....
It is unnecessary to refer to the latter part of the definition for the requirement of the latter part is satisfied.
3. The only question, therefore, is whether those 22 persons who were engaged for building work were persons who were employed for wages in or in connection with the work of the establishment. The work of the establishment is manufacture of teleprinters.
4. In a case decided by a Bench of this Court in E.S.I. Corporation v. Sakthi Textiles (P.) Limited : (1975)ILLJ388Mad , the question arose whether the workers who were employed for putting up additional buildings for the factory would be workmen within the meaning of the definition under Section 2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. Section 2(9) defines 'employee' as meaning any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory or establishment to which the Act applies. The definition of 'employee' under the Employees' State Insurance Act is in fact wider as it includes, under Clause (i) of Section 2(9), any person 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, whether such work is done by the employee in the factory or establishment or elsewhere. In considering the question whether the putting up of additional buildings for the expansion of the factory on a subsequent date would be work incidental or preliminary to the work of the factory, it was held that putting up additional buildings for the purpose, of commencing manufacturing process on a later date would not be employment incidental or preliminary to or connected with the work of a factory.
5. The definition under the Act which we are considering, i.e., the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 does not include persons who are employed on any work incidental to or preliminary to the work of the factory.
This definition being limited in scope, there could be no doubt that the decision in E.S.I. Corporation v. Sakthi Textiles (P.) Limited : (1975)ILLJ388Mad is applicable.
6. The learned Counsel referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court, namely, Central Railway Workshop v. Vishwanath : (1970)ILLJ351SC , and P.F. Inspector, Guntur v. T.S. Hariharan : (1971)ILLJ416SC . In Central Railway Workshop v. Vishwanath : (1970)ILLJ351SC . The Supreme Court was considering the definition of the term 'worker' in Section 2(c) of the Factories Act. The workers concerned there were time-keepers who were maintaining attendance of the staff, job-card particulars of the various jobs under operation and time-sheets of the staff working in various shops dealing with the production of railway spare parts and repairs, etc. It was held that the workers in question fell within the definition of 'worker'. The Supreme Court held that the work may be incidental to or connected with not only manufacturing process itself but also the subject of the manufacturing process. It may be observed that the time-keepers are connected with or incidental to, to the work of the establishment and this decision does not help us in deciding the present case as the words 'incidental to' are not included in the definition with which we are dealing with.
7. The decision in P.P. Inspector, Guntur v. T.S. Hariharan : (1971)ILLJ416SC deals with the employment of workers in works during certain seasons. The Supreme Court held that the word 'employment' means the employment in the regular course of business of an establishment and such employment will not include employment of a few persons for a short period on account of some passing necessity or some temporary emergency. This decision does not help the appellant.
8. In the circumstances, we agree with the view taken by the learned Judge and dismiss this appeal. No costs.