State of Haryana vs The Employees State Insurance Corporation

Gokal Chand Mital, J.—In this case the State of Haryana Health Department is running the workship for maintaining and repairing the vehicles used by the Health Department. Since 20 or more persons were employed in the workshop where the maintenance and repairing work was going on, the Chandigarh Administration demanded contributions under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'').

The demand was challenged by filing a petition u/s 75 of the Act on the ground that the maintenance and repairing of the vehicles of the Health Department belonged to the transport wing and the employees of the transport wing were provided with ex-gratia grant, medical reimbursement facilities etc., and, therefore, the Act and the scheme framed thereunder could not be extended to such employees. This matter was contested by the Corporation. During trial one of the employees of the transport wing appeared as PW3 and stated that the workers are not willing to get the Employees State Insurance scheme implemented by the department and in this behalf they have given in writing to them. Similar was the statement of another employee.

It was then the case of the State of Haryana that the number of employees was less than 20 and, therefore, the Act was not applicable. This matter was contested by the Corporation and both the parties led evidence. The Employees Insurance Court on the basis of evidence and particularly on the basis of record of the transport wing found that the establishment had 26 persons and on the spot inspection such number of persons were found working on 27th December, 1979. It is an admitted case of the Government that power is being used in the repair work. On the first point although no definite finding was given but it was found that the establishment falls within the definition of factory and since work was being carried on with the help of power and with the assistance of 26 employees, the establishment was fully covered by the Act and the application of the State was dismissed by order dated 29th October, 1983. This is appeal by the State of Haryana.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the mater I am of the view that there is no scope for interference in this appeal. The finding that 26 employees were found working on spot inspection is based on evidence and in any case is a question of fact and cannot be gone into in this appeal which is competent only on a substantive question of law.

It is true that the Civil Service Rules may be applicable to the employees working in the workshop. It is also true that there may be certain benefits which may be available to them under the Services Rules with regard to ex-gratia grant, re-imbursement of medical bills etc. but that by itself would not detract from the applicability of the Act. In the definition of factory contained in section 2(12) of the Act all premises have been included, wherein 20 or more persons are employed for wages and in which manufacturing process is carried on with the aid of power and the applicability of this definition is excluded only in regard to mines subject to the operation of the Mines Act, 1952 or a railway running shed. The premises wherein repairing and maintenance work of Motor vehicles is carried on come within the definition of factory and it hardly matters whether such premises belong to State or private individuals. The Act is social and beneficial legislation enacted to give relief to employees working in factories and by virtue of notification issued u/s 1(5) of the Act to the other establishments. The exclusion of raiiway running shed and of mines subject to the operation of the Mines Act rather goes to show that other premises even if they belong to the State Government if fulfil the other qualifications of the definition of factory would be covered by the Act. Accordingly it cannot be held that merely because the workshop is owned by the State Government it does not fall within the ambit of the Act.

As regards the statements of two of the employees that they do not want to be covered by the Act, this is of no avail in law. Once the Act and the scheme are applicable, they can neither contract out of it, nor would the Act and the scheme cease to be applicable even if they give in writing that they do not want to be covered by it. As already noticed, it is a social and beneficial legislation enacted for the benefit of the employees and they would be entitled to its benefits under all circumstances.

For the reasons recorded above this appeal is without merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.