Skip to content


Swamy and Co. (Tanners) Vaniambadi by V. Narayanaswami Senior partner Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation through the Insurance Inspector (12.11.1969 - MADHC) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1970)2MLJ232
AppellantSwamy and Co. (Tanners) Vaniambadi by V. Narayanaswami Senior partner
RespondentEmployees' State Insurance Corporation through the Insurance Inspector
Cases ReferredM.H. Ismail Sahib Co. v. Regional Director
Excerpt:
- .....for two years. the appellants are running a tannery in vellore area in vaniambadi. admittedly the tanning process is being carried on without the aid of any power, although in pumping water, which is used during the tanning process a diesel engine is used. the question arises whether the appellants are conducting a factory within the meaning of section 2, sub-clause 12 of the employees state insurance act. that clause defines a factory to mean any premises whereon 20 or more persons are working and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power. in view of the admission that no part of the tanning process is being carried on with the aid of power, i have little doubt that the appellants cannot be regarded as conducting a factory within the meaning.....
Judgment:

S. Maharajan, J.

1. These appeals are directed against a common order passed by the learned District Judge, Vellore, directing the appellants to pay the employees compensation under Section 40(1) of the Employees State Insurance Act to the E.S.I. Corporation for two years. The appellants are running a tannery in Vellore area in Vaniambadi. Admittedly the tanning process is being carried on without the aid of any power, although in pumping water, which is used during the tanning process a diesel engine is used. The question arises whether the appellants are conducting a factory within the meaning of Section 2, sub-clause 12 of the Employees State Insurance Act. That clause defines a factory to mean any premises whereon 20 or more persons are working and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power. In view of the admission that no part of the tanning process is being carried on with the aid of power, I have little doubt that the appellants cannot be regarded as conducting a factory within the meaning of the definition aforementioned. I may also refer in this connection to a Division Bench ruling of this Court in M.H. Ismail Sahib Co. v. Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation : (1960)IILLJ428Mad , in which it has been held that the mere fact that the water utilised has been pumped by electricity will not connect the pumping with the manufacturing process unless there is a certain interlinking between the functioning of the pump and the manufacturing process carried on in the factory. In the absence of such interlinking, I hold that the appellants are not a factory liable to pay employees' contribution under the Act. The orders of the Court below are, therefore, reversed and the appeals allowed with costs throughout.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //