http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: SHRI NARAKESARI PRAKASHAN LTD AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/10/1984

BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) SEN, A.P. (J)

CITATION:  1984 AIR 1916            1985 SCR  (1) 962  1984 SCC  (4) 627        1984 SCALE  (2)597

ACT:      Employees’ State  Insurance  Act  1948,  section  2(9)- Members of  the administrative  staff and editorial staff of printing presses-whether ’Employee’.      Words and  Phrases: ’employee’-’any person employed for wages on  any work  connected with the administration of the factory’-Meaning of.  Employees’ State  Insurance Act  1948, section 2(9).      Interpretation of  Statutes-When can  the provisions of an Act be controlled by the provisions of another Act.

HEADNOTE:      The  appellants   in  the  appeals  were  printers  and publishers of newspapers. The Assistant Regional Director of the Employee’s  State Insurance  Corporation issued a notice to the  appellants on  October 1,  1975 calling upon them to make contributions  in respect  of  the  administrative  and editorial staff  of the newspapers, with effect from January 28, 1968  on the ground that the aforesaid staff came within the definition  of the expression ’employee’ in section 2(9) of the  Employee’ a  State Insurance  Act 1948 as amended by the Amending Act No. 44 of 1966. After the aforesaid demands were made,  the appellants  filed  applications  before  the Employees’ State Insurance Court under section 75 of the Act questioning the  liability to  make contribution, in respect of the  said employees during the period between January 28, 1968 and  November 19,  1976. They  however did  not dispute their liability  in respect  of  the  period  subsequent  to November 19.  1976 on which date the notification was issued under  section   1  (5)   by  the  State  Government.  These applications  were   contested  by   the  Employees’   State Insurance Corporation.      The Employees’ Insurance Court allowed the applications holding that  until the  notification under  section 1(5) of the Act  was issued  by the  State Government making the Act applicable to  the establishments  of the appellants viz the administrative and  editorial sections  of the  presses, the said employees  could not  be considered  as ’employees’  as defined by section 2(9) of the Act.      The Corporation thereupon filed appeals before the High Courts under  section 32  of the  Act, which  were  allowed, holding  that   the  employees  concerned  came  within  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

definition given in section 2(9) aud, therefore, the 963 appellants were  liable to  make  contributions  during  the relevant period in respect of them also under the Act.      Dismissing the Appeals to this Court, ^      HELD:  1  An  examination  of  the  provisions  of  the Employees’ State  Insurance  Act  1948  indicates  that  the persons employed for wages in the administrative section and the editorial  section of  each of  the printing presses are employees as  defined in  section 2(9)  of the  Act and  the demand made by the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation is a justified one. [970E]      2. The  object of  the Employees’  State Insurance Act, 1948 is to provide for certain benefits to employees in case of sickness,  maternity and  employment injury  and to  make provisions for  certain other  matters in  relation thereto. Section 1(4)  of the Act provides that it shall apply in the first  instance,   to  all  factories  (including  factories belonging to  the Government) other than seasonal factories. Section  1(5)   of  the  Act,  however,  provides  that  the appropriate Government,  in consultation with the Employees’ State  Insurance   Corporation  and  where  the  appropriate Government is  a State  Government with  the approval of the Central Government  after giving  six months’  notice of its intention of  so doing  by a  notification in  the  official Gazette, extend  the provisions of the Act or any of them to any  other   establishment  or   class  of   establishments, industrial,  commercial,   agricultural  or  otherwise.  The expression ’establishment’  however was  not defined  in the Act. [967A-E]      3. Section  2(9) of  the  Act  defines  the  expression ’employee’ to  mean any  person  employed  for  wages  in  a factory or  any person employed for wages in connection with the work of a factory. It also means any person employed for wages in  or in connection with the work of an establishment to which the Act applies. [967H]      In the instant cases, the members of the administrative staff and  of the  editorial staff  in each  of the printing presses have  to be treated as employees under section 2(9). They are  directly employed  by the  management concerned on work incidental or preliminary or connected with the work of the factory.  The work  of the  factory in  each case  being printing and  publication of a newspaper, its work cannot be carried on  without the  assistance of  the members  of  the editorial staff  who are  engaged in  preparing the material for printing  the newspaper  and of the administrative staff which is  needed for  managing the  affairs of  the factory. [969C-D]      Hyderabad  Asbestos   Cement  Products   Ltd.  v.   The Employees Insurance  Court and  Anr., [1978]  2 S.C.R.  345, Royal  Tulkies,   Hyderabad  and  Ors.  v.  Employees  State Insurance Corp.,  [1979] 1  S.C.R. 80  and  Nagpur  Electric Light and  Power Co.  Ltd. v.  Regional Director  Employees, State  Insurance  Corporation  etc.,  [1967]  3  S.C.R.  92, referred to.      4. The  members of  the editorial  staff  clearly  fall under  clause   (i)  of   section  2(9)   of  the  Act.  The administrative staff fall under the clause contain- 964 ing the words ’includes any person employed for wages on any work connected  with the  administration  of  the  factory’. [969H; 970A]      5. The  effect of  an Act  cannot be  controlled by the provisions of  another Act unless the provisions in one have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

bearing on the provisions of the other. [970D]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 3296- 67 of 1984.      Appeals by  special leave  from the  Judgment and Order dated the  23rd January,  1981 of  the Bombay  High Court in F.A. Nos. 35 of 1978 & 139 of 1973.      B. Kanta Rao and Vijay Phadke for the Appellants.      Abaul Khader and R.N. Poddar for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      VENKATARAMIAN, J.  Shri Navakesari  Prakashan Ltd.  and Nav Samaj  Ltd., Nagpur  are the appellants in the above two appeals by  special leave  filed under  Article 136  of  the Constitution. The  appellants respectively  are printers and publishers of newspapers known as ’Tarun Bharat’ and ’Nagpur Times’. Their case is that their employees working for wages in  the  administrative  and  editorial  sections  of  their respective concerns  were  not  ’employees’  as  defined  in section 2  (9) of  the Employees’  State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) prior to November 19, 1976 on  which date  by a notification issued under s. 1 (5) of the  Act the  Government of the State of Maharashtra made the Act  applicable to  the said  employees  also  and  that therefore they  were not  liable to  make any  contributions under the  Act in  respect of the employees up to that date. They however  admit their  liability to  make  contributions during that  period in  respect of  persons employed by them for wages in the printing presses belonging to them.      The dispute  regarding the  liability of the appellants to make  contributions under  the  Act  in  respect  of  the members of  the administrative  and editorial staff arose on the Assistant  Regional Director  of  the  Employees’  State Insurance Corporation  calling upon them by notice issued on October 1, 1975 to make contributions in respect of the said members also with effect from January 28, 1968 on which date the amended  definition of  the  expression  ’employee’,  in section 2  (9) of  the Act as per the Amending Act No. 44 of 1966 came into force. After the above demands were made, the appellants filed 965 applications before  the Employees’  Insurance Court, Nagpur under section  75 of  the Act questioning their liability to make contributions  in respect of their employees working in the administrative  and editorial  sections of their presses during the  period between January 28, 1968 and November 19, 1976. They,  however, did  not dispute  their  liability  in respect of  the period  subsequent to  November 19,  1976 on which date the notification was issued under section 1(5) of the  Act   by  the   Maharashtra   State   Government.   The applications  were   contested  by   the  Employees’   State Insurance Corporation  The Employees Insurance Court allowed the applications  holding that  until the notification under section (5)  of the  Act was  issued by the State Government making the  Act applicable  to  the  establishments  of  the appellants viz  the administrative and editorial sections of their presses, the employees working in those sections could not be  considered as ’employees’ as defined by section 2(9) of the  Act. Aggrieved  by the  judgment of  the  Employees’ Insurance Court,  the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation filed appeals  before the High Court of Bombay under section 82’ of  the Act.  The High  Court allowed  the said  appeals holding  that   the  employees  concerned  came  within  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

definition given  in section 2 (9) of the Act and, therefore the appellants  were liable to make contributions during the relevant period  in respect  of them also under the Act. The appellants have  filed these appeals against the judgment of the High Court.      Before dealing  with  the  contentions  raised  by  the appellants, it  has to  be stated  that the  members of  the administrative staff  and the editorial staff of each of the printing presses  are employed  by the  management concerned for the  purpose of carrying on the business of printing and publishing the  newspaper brought out by it. The correctness of this  finding of fact recorded to the above effect by the High Court is not assailed before us. The main contention of the appellants  however is  that since  during the  relevant period they had maintained a distinction between the factory sections of  their printing  presses and  the  establishment sections which  included the  administrative  and  editorial sections  of   their   presses,   the   employees   in   the establishment sections  could not be treated as employees to whom the  Act was  applicable until  the notification issued under section  1 (5)  of the  Act expressly brought the said establishment sections also within the scope of the Act.      Section 2  (9) of  the Act which defines the expression ’employee’ during the period in question read thus: 966           "2(9)" employee"  means any  person  employed  for      wages in or in connection with the work of a factory or      establishment to which this Act applies and-      (i)  who is 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: or      (ii) who  is   employed  by  or  through  an  immediate           employer  on   the  premises  of  the  factory  or           establishment or  under  the  supervision  of  the           principal employer  or his  agent on work which is           ordinarily part  of the  work of  the  factory  or           establishment or  which is preliminary to the work           carried on  in or incidental to the purpose of the           factory or establishment; or      (iii) whose service are temporarily lent or let on hire           to the  principal employer by the person with whom           the person  whose services  are so  lent or let on           hire has  entered into  a contract of service; and           includes any person employed for wages on any work           connected with  the administration  of the factory           or establishment or any part, department or branch           thereof or with the purchase of law materials for,           or the  distribution or  sale of  the products of,           the  factory   or  establishment;   but  does  not           include-      (a)  any member  of the  Indian naval,  military or air           forces, or.      (b)  any  person  so  employed  whose  wages  excluding           remuneration for overtime work exceed five hundred           rupees a month:           Provided that  an employee  whose wages  excluding      remuneration for  overtime  work  exceed  five  hundred      rupees a  month at  any time  after and  not before the      beginning of the contribution period, shall continue to      be an employee until the end of that period."      The object  of  the  Act  is  to  provide  for  certain benefits to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

967 employees in  case of  sickness,  maternity  and  employment injury and  to make  provisions for certain other matters in relation thereto.  Section 1(4)  of the Act provides that it shall  apply,  in  the  first  instance,  to  all  factories (including factories belonging to the Government) other than seasonal factories.  The expression  ’factory’ is defined by section 2  (12) of  the Act  as any  premises including  the precincts  thereof   whereon  twenty  or  more  persons  are employed or  n were  employed for  wages on  any day  of the preceding  twelve   months  and  in  any  part  of  which  a manufacturing process  is being  carried on  with the aid of power or  is ordinarily so carried on but does not include a mine subject  to the  operation of  the Mines Act, 1952 or a railway running  shed. It is admitted, as mentioned earlier, that the printing presses owned by the managements where the newspapers are  printed and  published are factories and are governed by  the Act.  Section 1  (5) of  the Act,  however, provides that  the appropriate  Government, in  consultation with the  Employees’ State  Insurance Corporation  and where the appropriate  Government is  a State  Government with the approval of  the Central Government after giving six months’ notice of  its intention  of so doing by notification in the official Gazette, extend the provisions of the Act or any of them, to any other establishment or class of establishments, industrial,  commercial,   agricultural  or  otherwise.  The expression ’establishment  is not defined in the Act. It may be any  industrial, commercial,  agricultural or  any  other establishment where employees are engaged in connection with the business  of the  establishment. Section  38 of  the Act provides that  subject to  the provisions  of the  Act,  all employees in  factories or  establishments to  which the Act applies shall  be insured in the manner provided by the Act. Section 39  of the  Act states that the contribution payable under it shall comprise contribution payable by the employer and contribution  payable by the employee. The contributions have to be paid at the rates specified in the First Schedule to the Act except where the employees concerned are excluded from some  of the  benefits under  the Act in which case the Corporation  is   authorised  to   fix  the   rates  of  the contributions.      Now reverting  to section  2 (9)  of the Act it is seen that the expression ’employee’ means any person employed for wages in  a factory  or any  person employed  for  wages  in connection with  the work  of a  factory, it  also means any person employed  for wages in or in connection with the work of an establishment to which the 968 Act applies. If it is held in these cases that the employees in the  administrative or editorial sections of the printing presses are  employed in  connection with  the work  of  the printing presses  which are  admittedly factories, then they have to  be treated  as employees under section 2 (9) of the Act even  though no  notification is  issued under section 1 (5) of  the Act making the Act applicable to those sections. The fact that such a notification has been issued, either as a matter  of abundant caution or on a wrong understanding of the true  implication of  the definition  in section  2 (9), becomes irrelevant.  The members  of the  administrative and editorial staff  of the  appellants are no doubt not working in the  printing presses.  But the  question is whether they are not  working in connection with the work of the printing presses which are factories under section 2 (12) of the Act.      In Royal  Talkies, Aydraboe  & Ors.  v. Employees State Insurance Corp.  employees working  in a  canteen and at the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

cycle stand  attached to  a cinema  theatre were  held to be persons employed  in connection  with the work of the cinema theatre. The  Court, however,  observed  that  merely  being employed in  connection with  the work of a factory or of an establishment in  itself did  not entitle  a person to be an employee but it must be proved that he was not only employed in connection  with the work k of the establishment but also be shown  to be  employed in  one  or  other  of  the  three categories mentioned in section 2 (9) of the Act.      At this stage, two decisions of this Court are required to be  considered. In  Hydrabad Asbsets Cement Products Ltd. v. The Employees Insurance Court & Anr the appellant company which had a factory at Sanatnagar where it was manufacturing asbestos sheets  contained that  the employes working in its zonal offices  situated at  various other  places  who  were doing the  work of  canvassing  for  the  sale  of  products manufactured by  it at  Sanatnagar were not employees within the definition  of section  2 (9)  of the  Act as  the zonal offices were  establishments and  not factories.  Negativing the above  contention,  this  Court  held  that  any  person employed for  wages in  the zonal offices for the purpose of purchase of  raw materials  or distribution  or sale  of the products of the factory or for 969 administrative purposes of the factory was a person employed in connection  with the  worker of the factory and hence was an employee  as defined  by section  2 (9)  of the  Act. The Court  in   reaching  the  conclusion  also  relied  on  the amendment of  section 2 (9) of the Act by Act No. 44 of 1966 which provided  that the expression ’employee’ included ’any person employed  for wages  on any  work connected  with the administration of the factory’.      When the present appeals are considered in the light of the above decisions, the members of the administrative staff and of  the editorial  staff in each of the printing presses in question  have to  be treated  as employees under section 2(9) of  the Act. These persons are directly employed by the management concerned  on work  incidental or  preliminary or connected with  the work  of the  factory. The  work of  the factory in  each case  being printing  and publication  of a newspaper,  its  work  cannot  be  carried  on  without  the assistance of  the members  of the  editorial staff  who are engaged in preparing the material for printing the newspaper and of the administrative staff which is needed for managing the affairs  of the  factory.  It  is  a  matter  of  common knowledge that  the members  of  the  editorial  staff  work almost round  the clock  at the  premises where the printing press  is  situated  or  at  the  precincts  thereof.  Their principal job  is to pick up and select from out of the mass of information  which flows  in to the press, messages which have  news   value,  trim   them  and   make  them  fit  for communication through newspaper. Even though they may not be actually engaged  in operating  the printing machines, their presence at  the spot is essential right upto the moment the ’strike order’  is given  for the printing of the newspaper. There are  cases where  changes in  the matter to be printed are effected  even a  few  minutes  before  the  process  of printing is begun and cases where even after a few copies of newspaper are  printed, they  are withheld  and destroyed on the last  minute advice  of a  responsible  members  of  the editorial staff  are not unknown. The editors, news editors, sub-editors, reporters  etc. who  constitute  the  editorial staff at  the press  are the collectively referred to as the gate keepers’  of news because they determine what should be published and what should not be published. A printing press

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

established for the purpose of publishing a newspaper cannot effectively function  at all  without the  services  of  the members of  the editorial  staff being made available almost till the  time the  newspaper  comes  out  of  the  printing machine. They  virtually constitute  an integral part of the newspaper press and they are employed in connection with the work  done  at  the  printing  press.  The  members  of  the editorial staff clearly fall under clause (i) 970 of section 2(9) of the Act. It is so even in the case of the administrative staff.  They fall under the clause containing the words includes any person employed for wages on any work connected with  the administration  of the ’factory’. It may be stated  here that  even without the amendment made by Act No. 44  of 1966  this Court in Nagpur Electric Light & Power Co. Ltd.  v. Regional  Director  Employees  State  Insurance Corporation etc  had taken  the view that the clerical staff etc. of  a factory whether they worked within the factory or outside its  premises would  be employees under section 2(9) of the Act as it stood before its amendment.      The argument  that since  a person mainly employed in a managerial or administrative capacity cannot be treated as a working  journalist   under  section  2(9)  of  the  Working Journalists  (Conditions   of  Service)   and  Miscellaneous Provisions  Act,   1955,  the   members  employed   in   the administrative staff should not be treated as employees in a printing press  is an  extremely Jenuous  argument and it is not worth  probing further.  The effect  of on Act cannot be controlled by  the provisions  of  another  Act  unless  the provisions in  one have  bearing on  the provisions  of  the other. No  such provision  is brought  to  our  notice.  The contention  that   since  the  Act  is  not  expressly  made applicable  to   newspaper  establishments  by  the  Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 as it has made certain laws applicable by sections 3, 14  and 15  thereof, the Act should not be applied to the editorial staff  has also  no merit.  We are  satisfied that section 2(9) of the Act clearly brings them within the scope of the Act.      On an  examination of the provisions of the Act, we are of the  view that  the persons  employed for  wages  in  the administrative section  and the editorial section of each of the printing presses in question are employees as defined in section  2(9)  of  the  Act  and  the  demand  made  by  the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation is a justified one.      In the  result the  appeals fail and they are dismissed with costs. N.V.K.                                     Appeals dismissed 971