R. Rajendra Babu, J.
1. The important question that had come up for consideration was whether the E.S.I. Corporation could claim contribution from the employers in respect of the workers deployed by the Committee constituted under Section 18 of the Headload Workers Act for doing headload work in establishments.
2. Sri. N. Babu Rao, the respondent herein was conducting the business of processing of pepper and was engaging headload workers for doing the headload works. The E.S.I. Corporation demanded contribution in relation to the period from 3/1992 to 9/1992 and from 10/1992 to 3/1993. The respondent challenged the above order before the E.I. Court in I.C. No. 118/93 and prayed for a declaration that the establishment could not be covered under the E.S.I. Act and Scheme. The E.I. Court allowed the above petition partly. Aggrieved by the above order, the E.S.I. Corporation had filed this appeal.
3. The respondent was running an establishment of processing of pepper. He had attached headload workers for doing the headload works. When there was more work, he used to require the service of headload workers from the Committee constituted under Section 18 of the Headload Workers Act. Accordingly, the Committee was deploying headload workers to the establishment of the respondent and was collecting the wages and other amounts including an amount of Rs. 25 in excess of the wages for the implementation of the benefits under the Welfare Scheme.
4. The learned counsel for the E.S.I. Corporation submitted that the respondent being an employer coming within the definition of the principal employer under Section 2(17) of the E.S.I. Act was liable to pay contribution to the E.S.I. Corporation in respect of the employees deployed by the Committee. It was further argued that the Committee was the immediate employer or contractor and the respondent was the principal employer as defined under the E.S.I. Act. In view of the above argument it would be convenient to consider the definition of employer under the Section 2(i) of the Headload Workers Act. Section 2(i) reads:
'(i) in relation to a headload worker engaged by or through a contractor, the principal employer:
(ii) in relation to a headload worker who is not employed by any employer or contractor, the committee constituted under Section 18; and
(iii) in relation to any other headload worker, the person who has ultimately control over the affairs of the establishment in or for which the headload worker is employed and included any other person to whom the affairs of such establishment are entrusted, whether such person is called an agent, manager or by any other name prevailing in such establishments'
The above definition would make it clear that the Committee constituted under Section 18 of the Headload Workers Act would be the employer in respect of headload workers registered before the Committee in an area where the Scheme was made applicable. Clause (i) of Section 2(i) deals with the employer who engages the headload worker directly and through a contractor and if the worker is engaged through a contractor then such employer becomes the principal employer. A contractor is defined under Section 2(g) of the Headload Workers Act. The above definition does not take in a Committee constituted under Section 18 of the Act as a Contractor. The definition of employer in Clause (ii) of Section 2(i) 'in relation to a headload worker who is not employed or engaged by an employer or Contractor' would exclude the Committee being treated as an immediate employer but the Committee has to be treated as an employer, so far as the headload workers deployed by the Committee are concerned. The Committee cannot be treated as a contractor too, but it is a body constituted under the Statute and is an employer under the Headload Workers Act. It is made more clear in Paragraph 10 of the Scheme. Para 10 reads:
'10. Every headload worker shall be deemed to be employed by the Committee of that area and his work shall be supervised by the person for whom the workers have been allotted, as well as by any officer of the Committee'.
When the Statute which created the Committee defines it as an employer, and specifically excluded from the category of a Contractor, or an immediate employer, the E.S.I. Corporation is not empowered to treat the Committee as a Contractor or immediate employer and to burden the employer who engages the headload workers through the Committee with the liability to pay contribution to the E.S.I. Corporation. The approach made by the E.S.I. Corporation to treat the respondent as the principal employer in respect of the headload workers deployed by the Committee is illegal and the E.I. Court is fully justified in interfering with the above order of the E.S.I. Corporation.
5. The headload workers registered with the Committee shall be working under the directions of the Committee. The Committee has to pool the workers in as many groups as are needed and each group will have to work in specified area as per para 20 of the Scheme. Whenever a dealer/employer requires the service of a headload worker or headload workers, he has to make a request to the Committee and the Committee shall deploy one or the required number of headload workers. One day one headload worker would be attending to the work of one dealer but on the next day another worker would be attending to the works of the same dealer. Thus there is possibility of all headload workers in the pool attending to the works of one dealer/ employer and the same headload worker attending to the works of all the dealers in the specified area. If that be so, it is possible to collect contributions from all the dealers/employers in respect of all the workers in the pool. It would be unconscionable to think of such a situation. It may not be possible to claim contribution from all such employers in respect of the same employee. There was practical difficulty for implementing the E.S.I. Scheme so far as unattached headload workers are concerned as the same worker would be doing headload work for different employers and different headload workers would be doing work for the same employer. The Scheme had been formulated under the Headload Workers Act for providing several welfare measures to the headload workers. The welfare measures contemplated as per the Scheme are far superior to the welfare measures under the E.S.I. Act. In fact, the Government should have issued an order exempting the Committee or the employers who are receiving services of the headload workers from the Committee from the purview of the E.S.I. Act. The E.I. Court considered the entire aspects in the proper perspective and held that the E.S.I. Corporation cannot demand contribution from the respondent in respect of the headload workers deployed by the Committees constituted under Section 18 of the Headload Workers Act. I find no reasons to interfere with the above order passed by the E.I. Court and as such the appeal has only to be dismissed.
Hence this M.F.A. is dismissed.