ICTION Civil Appeal No 3197 98 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 441988 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal Nos 16 and 438 of 1986
PP Rao MK Ramamurthy SS Ray Raj Kumar Gupta VJ Francis NM PopIi SK Nandy PK Dutta and AD Sikri for the appearing parties
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA CJ
I have had the advantage of perus ing the draft judgments prepared by my learned brethren Punchhi and Ramaswamy JJ
While Justice Punchhi has gone by the literal construction of the statute brother Ramaswamy has tried to find out the spirit of the legislation and with a view to conferring the benefit on the workmen has adopted a construction different from the reported decision of this  Court
I agree with Justice Punchhi that the appeals should be dismissed and the judgment of the Division Bench should be sustained
At the same time 1 would like to add that the legislative intention should have been brought out more clearly by undertaking appropriate legislation once this Court took a different view in the decision referred to in brother Punchhi s judgment
The legislation is beneficial and if by interpretation put by the Court the intention is not properly brought out it becomes a matter for the legi siatture to attend to
PUNCHHI J
The sole question which falls for determi nation in these appeals is whether on the facts found the right of the Principal employer to reject or accept work on completion on scrutinizing compliance with job require ments as accomplished by a contractor the immediate em ployer through his employees
is in itself an effective and meaningful supervision as envisaged under Section 29 of the  198 for short the Act The said provision as it stood at the relevant time is set out below as is relevant for our purpose 29  employee  means any person em ployed 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 inciden tal or preliminary to or connected 279 with the work of the factory or establish ment whether such work is done by the employ ee in the factory or establishment or else where or ii who is employed by or through an immediate employer on the premises of the factory or establishment or under the supervi sion 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 services 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 The Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation India Ltd hereinafter referred to as the CESC engages var ious contractors to carry out work of excavation conversion of overhead electric lines and laying of underground cables under public roads as well as for repair and maintenance of the aforesaid works
Subhash Chandra Bose  some others the private respondents herein were given such contracts terms and conditions in respect of each were reduced to writing
They would be adverted to at the appropriate time common as they are to all
The CESC was on notice alerted by the Regional Director of the Employees State Insurance Corpora tion for short ESIC  by means of communication dated 26August1975 that the employees whose wages were being paid through such a contractor would fall within the scope of Section 29 of the Act and for reasons and details men tioned in the communication
Thereupon the CESC on its part engaged in correspondence with the Association of Electrical Contractors of Eastern India a representative body of the contractors who are parties respondents herein requiring them to comply with the provisions of the said Act immediately or else it will deduct a lumpsum of 7 from their bills
The Association questioned the move and strong ly refuted such obligation
After indulging in some corre spondence on the subject the CESC started making deduc tions from their bills on account of contribution to the Employees State Insurance Fund on and from 1984 and contin ued deducting till 1985 at the rate of 10
Some more corre spondence ensued but in vain
The electrical contractors then moved the High Court of Calcutta on December 6 1985 by means of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the ESIC and its officers as also the CESC as 280 well as the Union of India so as to have the entire basis of the demand and deductions from bills annulled
It was the categoric stand of the writ petitioners that for carrying out their contracts they were not supervised by the CESC the principal employer and they were carrying out works allotted to them at sites outside the factory estab lishment of the CESC
Claiming that there employees did not come within the definition of the term employee  in Section 29 of the Act they required of the High Court to determine this jurisdictional fact and issue the asked for writ direction or order appropriate in the case to have it nipped in the bud
The matter was enterained by the High Court and was heard on affidavits
The dispute necessarily centred round as to whether the CESC exercised any supervision while the contracts were being executed and as to whether the terms thereof assuming that they were faith fully observed
amounted to work being carried out under the supervision and gaze of the CESC
The respective parties put in supportive affidavits to their respective stands
A learned Single Judge of the High Court when seized of the matter on March 23 1984 passed an interim order giving leave to the CESC to respond to the notice issued by the ESIC and avail of the opportunity of being heard
as required by law and till then stayed the realisation of the contribution
The matter was then thrashed by the Regional Director of the ESIC who on March 30 1985 passed an order under Section 45 A of the Act holding that the CESC was liable to pay Rs 162156405 on account of contribution to the Employees State Insurance in respect of employees of its contractors and askedil to pay the same within the time allotted
This order of the Regional Direc tor of the ESIC gave legitimacy to the deductions from the bills of the private electrical contractors already made by the CESC
But sinceil was otherwise aggrieved of the foisting of the obligation it moved another writ petition of its own under Article 226 of the Constitution against the ESIC and others claiming that it was not obliged to demand contributions on account of insurance in respect of the employees of the electrical contractors
These two writ petitions were beard together and were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on January 11 1986
The learned Single Judge construed the contracts between the electrical contractors and ire CSEC whereunder the contractors were obliged to super vise on their own the work undertaken so as to held that in the facts and circumstances of the case the ultimate super vision was that of the ESICand hence the Act was ap plicable
The learned Single Judge also took the view that the Act being a beneficial piece of legislation enacted for the protection and benefit of workers required liberal interepretation as was held by this Court in MG Beedi Works vs Union of India AIR 1974 SC 1952 and then proceed ed to hold that the contractors as supervisors were in the nature of agents of the CESC the principal employer
The learned 281 Single Judge also took the view that since ultimate energis ing of the transmission lines was invariably effected by the CESC after proper checks were effected for laying of cables or other maintenance work that step by itself was supervision  so as to attract the provisions of the Act
Such finding was based on the fact that even though the agreement specified that work was to be done under the supervision of the electrical contractor the CESC re tained the ultimate power or supervision and in fact did supervise the work executed by the contractors
It is then that the learned Single Judge abruptly come to the conclu sion that the principal employer could not escape the li ability for the works of his contractors as the latter was acting as the agent of the principal  red in sense contin ued the view of the Regional Director of the ESIC Two appeals were filed against the dismissal of the two writ petitions before the Division Bench of the High Court who after re considering the matter reversed the learned Single Judge which has given cause for these appeals by special leave and the poser of the question mentioned at the outset
Now it is noteworthy that the Regional Director of the ESIC drew deductions of facts in his impugned order dated March 301985 in this manner The job which is performed by these employees engaged through the contractors
was princi pally maintenance and distribution of elec tricity generated by the CESC and also consumers  service
It was conceded during the course of hearing that after the work entrust ed to such contractors was completed it was subject to checking by CESC for compliance with their job specifications and the work related to main business of the CESC
It cannot therefore be argued that merely because such job was performed outside the factory premises as stated it did not concern the CESC
The definition of the term premises  includes such work site where the job of the factory is being done
1 cannot agree there fore with the argument that such job was not done for the factory andor that there was no supervision of the CESC over such job
It could not but be a fact that  E section C was executing its own job through lite agency of the coontractors engaged by them
The CESC s contention that they have acted upon the guidelines as provided in the letter dated 26875 does not hold good as the letter dated 26875 Annexure E issued by the Regional Director of ES I Corporation
does not hold good as the said letter only con 282 tained broad guidelines regarding provisions of the ESI Act and the truth has to be ascertained from the realities of the situa tion
underlining ours In place thereof the Division Bench of the High Court taking stock of the admitted facts opined as follows There is no dispute that respondent no4 ESIC is the principal employer in respect of the said work and that the appellants elec trical contractors are the immediate employ ers of the said employees in connection with the said work
There is no dispute that the employees of the appellants are not directly employed by the respondent no4 ESlC
There is also no dispute that the employees of the appellants electrical contractors do not carry out the aforesaid work either in the premises or the factory or establishment of respondent No 4 ESIC
It is also not disputed that the work which is carried out by the employees of the appellants electrical contractors can be stated to be work ordi narily part of the work of the respondent no4 ESIC or preliminary or incidental to such work
The only dispute appears to be whether there is any supervision of the employees of the appellants electrical contractors by the respondent no4 ESIC or its agents bracketing ours Commenting on the impugned order of the Regional Director of the ESIC dated March 30 1985 afore extract ed the Division Bench observed as follows It has not been found by the respondent no2 Regional Director as a fact that in carrying out the aforesaid work the employees of the appellants are under the supervision of the respondent no4 or its agents
All that has been found is that after the works which are entrusted to the appellants axe completed the same are checked by the respondent no4
From the aforesaid it is obvious that it has not been found by the ESI Authorities that there is actual supervision by the respondent no4 or its agents of the aforesaid works which are performed by the employees of the appellants
All that has been found is that after the aforesaid work is completed the respondent no4 checks the same
In our view checking of a work after the same is completed and super vision of the same while the same is being performed are entirely different
Checking of a work after its completion is always done in every case by the person who ordered the same to be done so that the work 283 can be finally accepted and payment made therefor
After the work is completed a further checking cannot mean or imply any or any further supervision
 Vehemently was it urged on behalf of the appellants that the High Court fell in error in giving a restricted meaning to the word supervision  occurring in Section 29 of the Act and in taking out the final act of rejection or accept ance of work from the purview of that word
Strong reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Royal Talkies vs
E SI C   to project that this Court has spelled out that the main aim of the Act was to insure all employees in factories or establishments against sickness and allied disabilities but the funding
to implement the policy of insurance was by contribution from the employers and the employees
In the same breath it was observed that since the benefits belong to the employees and are intended to embrace as extensive a circle as is feasible the social orientation protective purpose and human coverage of the Act were important considerations in the statutory construc tion more weighty than mere logomachy or grammatical nice ty
Reliance also was placed on Regional Director ESIC Trichur vs Ratnanuja Match Industries in which it was ruled that beneficial legislation such as the Act is to receive a liberal interpretation
The Court yet ruled that it could not travel beyond the scheme of the statute and extend the scope of it on pretext of extending statutory benefits to those not covered by the scheme of the statute
The Act being not meant for universal converage the negatives in the Act one of them being that the Act did not apply to factories or establishments with less than 20 employees was taken into account to rule that liberal construction would not go to hold a partner to be an employ ee as he would be a person who would not answer the defini tion
A judgment of this Court in Ms PM patel  Sons  Others vs Union of India  Ors 1986 I SCC 32 rendered in the context of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellane ous Provisions Act 1952 was pressed into service on behalf of the appellants to contend that when rolled beedis pre pared by the worker elsewhere were placed for acceptance or rejection conforming to the standards envisaged by the manufacturers that in itself was held constituting an effective decree of supervision and control
The benefit of the said Act was extended to beedi workers employed through contractors and the question arose whether such workers came within the definition of employee  in Section 2f of the said Act
The definition of the word employee  provided that it shall include any person employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with work of the establish ment which words were held wide enough 284 to include work performed elsewhere than the factory itself including the dwelling house of a home worker as also that the manufacturing operation simple as it was performed by illiterate workers young and old subjecting to rejection and acceptance was by itself an effective degree of super vision and control establishing the relationship of master and servant
In whatever manner the word employee  under Section 29 be construed liberally or restrictedly the construc tion cannot go to the extent of ruling out the function and role of the immediate employer or obliterating the distance between the principal employer and the immediate employer
In some situations he is the cut off
He is the one who stumbles in the way of direct nexus being established unless statutorily fictioned between the employee and the principal employer
He is the one who in a given situation is the principal employer to the employee directly employed under him
If the work by the employee is conducted under the immediate gaze or overseeing of the principal employer or his agent subject to other conditions as envisaged being fulfilled he would be an employee for the purpose of sec tion 29
Thus besides the question afore posed with regard to supervision of the principal employer the subsidiary question is whether instantly the contractual supervision exercised by the immediate employer the electrical contrac tors over his employee was exercised on the terms of the contract towards fulfilling a selfobligation or in dis charge of duty as an agent of the principal employer
PM Patel s case can also be no help to interpret the word supervision  herein
The word as such is not found employed in Section 21 of The Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 but found used in the text of the judgment
It appears to have been used as a means to establish connection between the employer and the employee having regard to the nature of work performed
But what has been done in Patel s case cannot ipso facto be imported in the instant case since the word supervision  in the textual context requires independent construction
In the ordinary dictional sense to supervise means to direct or over see the performance or operation of an activity and to over see it watch over and direct
It is work under eye and gaze of someone who can immediately direct a corrective and tender advice
In the textual sense supervision  of the priucipal employer or his agent is on work  at the places envisaged and the word work  can neither be construed so broadly to be the final act of acceptance or rejection of work nor so narrowly so as to be supervision at all times and at each and every step of the work
A harmonious construction alone would help carry out the purpose of the Act
which would mean moderating the two extremes
When the 285 employee is put to work under the eye and gaze of the prin cipal employer or his agent where he can be watched se cretly accidently or occasionally while the work is in progress so as to scrutinise the quality thereof and to detect faults therein as also put to timely remedial meas ures by directions given finally leading to the satisfac tory completion and acceptance of the work that would in our view be supervision for the purposes of Section 29 of the Act
It is the consistency of vigil the proverbial a stitch in time saves nine 
The standards of vigil would of course depend on the facts of each case
Now this function the principal employer no doubt can delegate to his agent who in the eye of law is his second self ie a substitute of the principal employer
The immediate employer instant ly the electrical contractors can by statutorily compul sion never be the agent of the principal employer
If such a relationship is permitted to be established it would not only obliterate the distinction between the two but would violate the provisions of the Act as well as the contractual principle that a contractor and a contractee cannot be the same person
The ESIC claims establishment of such agency on the terms of the contract a relationship express or implied
But as is evident the creation or deduction of such relationship throws one towards the statutory scheme of keeping distinct the concept of the principle and immediate employer because of diverse and distinct roles
The defini tion is well drawn in Halsbury s Laws of England Hailsham Edition Vol 1 at page 193 as follows An agent is to be distinguished on the one hand from a servant and on the other from an independent contractor
A servant acts under the direct control and supervision of his master and is bound to conform to all reasona ble orders given to him in this course of his work an independent contractor on the other hand is entirely independent of any control or interference and merely undertakes to produce a specified result employing his own means to produce that result
An agent though bound to exercise his authority in accordance with all lawful instructions which may be given to him from time to time by his princi pal is not subject to its exercise to the direct control and supervision of the princi pal
AND this statement of law was used with approval by this Court in  titled as The Superintendent of post Offices etc
vs PK Rajamma etc
Now coming to the subsidiary question the High Court took up one particular contract dated January 201984 be tween one of the electrical contractors and the CESC
The material portion thereof is as follows 286 The said contract relates to laying of new undergound cables and conversion of overcad mains and service to underground system at Barrackpore Trunk Road between Paikpare Junc tion to DF 16 and from Baranagar PT to DFI67
Please note that you will have to provide competent supervision while carrying out the work in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Electricity Rules 1956
You will also have to provide adequate watch and ward ar rangement for the safe custody of the materi als till such time and complete installation is handed over to us
You will be required to insure against theft and pilferage of all materials while held in your site godown
The obligation embodied as is plain is for the elec trical contractor to provide competent supervision while carrying out the work
The electrical contractor is other wise a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act and the Rules made thereunder and the conditions of his licence read as follows MrMessrs
Eastern Engineers  Constructions isare hereby authorised to carry out electri cal installation work in the State of West Bengal
This licence is issued subject to the compliance with the conditions set out on the reverse and also to the continued compliance with the conditions set out in Regulation 24 of the Regulations under Rule 451 of the Indian Electricity Rules 1956
1 All electrical installation work coming within the purview of Rule 45 1 of the Indian Electricity Rules 1956 undertaken by the holder of this licence shall be car ried out under the direct supervision of a person holding a valid certificate of compe tency 2 The holder of this licence shall maintain a register of supervision and workmen in the form below and shall produce the regis ter for inspection on demand by an Electrical Inspector or other person authorised in this behalf the Licensing Board
3 On the completion of any electrical installation work coming within purview of rule 451 of the Indian Electricity Rules 1956 a test report in the form prescribed by the Board shall be submitted by the holder of this licence to the Secretary
The report shall be signed by the supervisor under whose supervision the work has been carried out 287 and countersigned by the holder of this li cence who shall be wholly responsible for the due execution of the work
4 If the holder of this licence ceases to be in possession of a valid supervisor s certificate of competency ceases to retain in his said employment at least one supervisor holding valid certificate of competency this licence shall be invalid
5 If the holder of this licence accepts an employment under any other firm or person for the purpose of carrying out or supervising any electrical installation work coming within the purview of rule 451 of the Indian Elec tricity Rules 1956 this licence shall be invalid and the holder shall return the same to the Secretary for cancellation
The terms and conditions of the licence postulate the licensee to carry out the installation work of the kind mentioned under the direct supervision of a person holding a valid certificate of competency
For that purpose the licen see shall maintain a register of supervision
Such register is open to inspection on demand by an electrical inspector or other person authorised in this behalf by the Licensing Board
On completion of the installation work of the kind mentioned a test report shall be submitted by the licensee to the Secretary which report shall first be signed by the supervisor under whose supervision the work had been carried out and then countersigned by the licensee who shall be wholly responsible for the due execution of the work
The licence further enjoins the licensee either to retain a valid supervisory certificate of competency or keep one such person retained in his employment failing which the licence can be invalidated
Same is the position if the licensee accepts employment under any other firm or person for the purpose of carrying out or supervision any electrical in stallation work of the kind mentioned
In that situation the license is to be returned to the Secretary for cancella tion
On the conjoint reading of the contract with the CESC and the terms and conditions of the licence assum ing the terms were to be faithfully obeyed could it other wise be held that the CESC could appoint the electrical contractor as its agent to have the work carried out under the latter s supervision in place of CESC
As is evi dent the contract relates to laying of new underground cables conversion of overhead mains and service and mainte nance to the underground system
The work being highly sophisticated in nature requiring special skill and exper tise is given by the CESC to the contractor on the condition that the latter will have to provide competent supervision while the work progresses in ac 288 cordance with the provisions of the Indian Electricity Rules 1956 which in the larger interest of the electrical network and community and its safeguards require an elec trical contractor obtaining a licence to carry out electri cal installation work of the kind mentioned
Then the Rules obligate him to take in his services a person holding a valid certificate of competency under whose direct supervi sion the work is required to be carried out and on comple tion its final report being first signed by the supervisor supervising the work and then countersiged by the holder of the licence who will be responsible for the due execution of the work
The licence is capable of being rendered in valid or liable for cancellation due to nonemployment of a supervisor given in the terms and conditions
Even if the terms of the contract and the terms and conditions of the licence the first being at the behest of the CESC and the second being at the behest of the Government of West Bengal be suggested to be complementing each other still these cannot be so interplayed to mean that an agency express or implied has been created by the CESC in favour of the electrical contrator appointing him to super vise work as envisaged under Section 29 of the Act and thus to have established a direct link between the employee and the CESC to the exclusion of the electrical contrac tor
Section 182 of the defines agent as a person employed to d3 any act or to represent another in dealing with third person the person for whom such act is done or is so represented is called the prin cipal
Section 184 of the said Act further provides that as between principal and the third person any person may become an agent so as to be responsible to his principal
Now it is to be understood that the agent has an identity distinct from his principal in one sense and a fictional identity with his principal in the other
The agreement nowhere amalgamates the identity of the electrical contractor with that of the principal CESC by undertaking to provide adequate supervision for the purposes of the Act on behalf of the CESC
The agreement no doubt provides that the electrical contractor would provide adequate supervision while carrying on with the work the purpose dominant is to safeguard obtaining quality work and safety safeguards and to conform to the provisions of the Electricity Supply Act
To the Division Bench of the High Court it was obvious that the Regional Director of the ESIC had nowhere found that there was actual supervision either by the CESC or its duly appointed agents over works which were performed by the employees of the electrical contractors
All that has been found is that the said works on completion were checked by the CESC and then accepted
Checking of work after the same is completed and supervision of work while in progress is not the same
These have different perceptions
Checking 289 of work on its completion is an activity the purpose of which is to finally accept or reject the work on the touch stone of job specifications
Thereafter if accepted it has to be paid for
Undisputably electrical contractors had to be paid on the acceptance of the work
This step by no means is Supervision exercised
Neither can it be the terminating point of an agency when the interests of the so called principal and the so called agent become business like
Besides the High Court has found that the work done by employees was under the exclusive supervision of the elec trical contractors or competent supervisors engaged by them trader the terms of the contract and the licence
By neces sary implication supervision by the CESC or its agents stood excluded
Supervision rested with persons holding valid certificates of competency for which a register of supervision was required under the licence to be maintained
Under the contracts the electrical contractors cannot in one breath be termed as agents of the CESC undertaking supervision of the work of their employees and innately under the licence to have beforehand delegated that function to the holder of the certificate of competency
Thus we hold that on the terms of the contract read with or without the terms of the licence no such agency factually or legally stood created on behalf of the CESC in favour of the electrical contractors and none could be as hat would violate the statutory scheme of distinction well marked under Section 2a of the Act
The supervision taken was to fulfil a contractual obligation simplicitor and we leave it at the level
Thus on both counts the principal question as well as the subsidiary question must be answered against the ESIC holding that the employees of the electrical contractors on facts and cricumstances established before the Division Bench of the High Court do not come in the grip of the Act and thus all demands made towards ESI contribution made against the CESC and the electrical contractors were invalid
We affirm the view of the High Court in that re gard
The appeals are accordingly dismissed
In the circum stances however we make no order as to costs
K RAMASWAMY J From the midst of personal warmth 1 am enjoying with my learned brethren I have to cool off from the discomfortable breeze generated by the draft judgment of brother Punchhi J given my anxious reflections of its consequences and with due respect 1 express my inability to fail in line with
The 34 of 1948 for short the Act  seeks to serve the twin objects namely social security ie medical 290 benefits in case of sickness maternity and employment injury and other matters relating thereto and to augment the efficient performance of the duty
The respondents immedi ate employers had contracts with the Calcutta Electricity Corporation India Ltd for short the Corporation  the Principal employer to carry out excavation erection of overhead electric lines and laying of underground cables beneath public roads as well as their repairs and mainte nance
The Act enjoins the employer to contribute his 50 share towards medical reimbursement with a proportionate cut from the wages of the employees and to debit it to the Employees  State Insurance Corporation fund to render medi cal assistance etc
to the employees
In consequence there would be cut to the extent of 10 or as may be specified from time to time in the profit packet of the immediate employers
For some time it was complied with but late assailed their liability under article 226 of the Constitution
The conflagration of the claims between the immediate em ployers and their employees gave rise to the lis
The imme diate employers arming themselves with independent contrac tor s clout summon the services of the gramarian and tells him that our contracts with the Corporation are bilateral untramelled by routine supervision or agency with the Corpo ration under section 29 of the Act and tell us whether your golden rule does not apply to us Like Shylock are we not entitled to prevent inroad into our profit pocket not even a farthing from minimal of 10 though the workman may give us efficient service on receiving medical treatment  The employees request the social engineer to sharpen his foren sic skills of his instruments to provide them social secunty from health and occupational hazards fastering a part of the liability on the immediate employers whom they serve
Wheth er the social engineer would avoid unjust result like Port jo s judgment  Whether the words in the contract would be masters by golden rules  Whether the words Supervision or agent in s29 of the Act would be so construed or adopt ed by purposive approach as to do what justice and equity required  The result of the combat between the granmarian and the social engineer would provide the answer to these searching questions
Before adverting to angle into their perceptions it is of utility to keep abreast the brass facts that lie in a short compass
The Corporation had from the State Govt
Licensor licence under s3 of the Indian Electricity Act 9 of 1910 for short the Electricity Act  to generate transmit and supply electrical energy to the consumers of the area
The Corporation is enjoined to erect electric supply lines and also overhead lines service lines under ground cables through which energy is to be supplied to the either distributing main or immediately from the suppliers  premises etc
It entered into contracts with the respondents to lay undergound cables to erect overhead lines their repairs and maintenance and for execution thereof employed their own employees
291 The Elecricity Act empowers the Corporation as licensee under section 12 thereof to open and break Up the soil etc
and lay down electricity supply lines and other works repair alter or remove the same and do all other acts necessary for due supply of energy
It also empowers under Sec 13 to execute new works in compliance of that section
Under Sec
14  15 it is empowered alteration of the pipes or wires
10 empowers a licensee to place any overhead lines along or across any street etc
20 empowers the licen see or any person duly authorised by a licensee to enter upon any premises at reasonable time on prior intimation to the occupier of any premises or land etc
upon which the electricity supply line or other works have been lawfully placed for the purpose of a inspecting testing repairing or altering the electricity supply lines meters fittings works and apparatus for the supply of energy belonging to the licensee etc
Thus the Corporation as a licensee is ordinarily and as an integral scheme to execute the works or duly authorise on its behalf any other person to execute any of the works enumerated herinbefore or inspection repair testing or alteration of the works and maintenance thereof
A conjoint reading of section section 3 2 b of the Electricity Act and Clause 1 a of the Schedule shows that the licen see is required to show to the satisfaction of the State Government that the Corporation is in a position to fully and efficiently discharge the duties and obligations imposed upon him by the licence throughout the area of the supply
On its failure the State Govt
under section 4 1 c i is entitled to revoke the licence
In terms of section 151 the duly authorised persons of the licensee is to operate under the Act to lay new electric supply lines or other works etc
Equally Clause V 1 of the Schedule provides to lay down distributing mains for public lighting of any street on a requisition made by two or more owners of occupiers of the premises
The Indian Electricity Rules 1956 for short the Rules  made under section 37 of the Electricity Act provides the procedure in this regard
Rule 36 adumberates handling of electric supply lines
apparatus
only by authorised per son who is required to take safety measures approved by the electrical Inspector appointed under section 36 of the Electricity Act
Sub rule 2 of Rule 36 provided thus No person shall work on any live electric supply line or apparatus and no person shall assist such person on such work unless he is authorised in that behalf and takes the safety measures approved by the Inspector
Rule 45 provides precautions to be taken by electrical workmen suppliers etc
Unless electrical contractor li censed in this behalf by the 292 State Govt appoints a person holding a certificate of competency and a permit in this behalf issued or recognised by the State Govt
 the contractor shall not be entitled to undertake any installation work etc
Rule 51 provides cer tain safety measures to be taken to the satisfaction of the Inspector so as to prevent danger
Rule 64 requires an authorised person to carry out the acts mentioned therein subject to the supervision provided in Clause b thereof by the Electrical Inspector
Rule 1234 speaks of examination of flexible cables by authorised persons and Rule 1258 enjoins that all apparatus to be operated only by those persons who are authorised for the purpose
It could thus be seen that the Corporation as a licen see is empowered and enjoined to lay the works production transmission and distribution of electrical energy to the consumers within the area of supply
It is also authorised to entrust any person authorised by it in this behalf to perform the duties of the licensee under the Act and the Rules
The contractor in turn appoint a qualified supervisor to have works executed and maintained or repaired subject to inspection and supervision by the Electrical Inspector of the State Govt
The primary duty and responsibility is that of the Corporation as the Principal employer to have the works etc
executed repaired and maintained through its employees
It duty authorises the contractor to have these works done repaired or maintained on its behalf though the media of contract
The question emerges whether the respondents are not immediate employers executing the works etc
under the supervision of the Principal empleyer or as its agents  From the above backdrop of statutory operation the scope of section 29 is to be gauged which reads thus 29 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 inciden tal 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 elswhere or ii who is employed by or through an immediate employer on the premises of the factory or establishment or under the supervi sion 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 293 on in or incidental to the purpose of the factory or establishment or iii Whose services 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 
 It encompasses employees employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory or establishment to which the Act applies i who are directly employed by the principal employer or ii employed by or through an imme diate employers and whose services are temporarily lent or let on hire to the principal employer by the person with whom the person is entered into a contract of service
Clause 29ii applicable to the facts on hand in turn attracts a person employed by or through an immediate em ployer as an employee of the principal employer provided the following conditions are satisfied namely 1 the immedi ate employer employs an employee on the premises of the factory or establishment of the principal employer 2 or under the supervision of the principal employer 3 this agent on work which is ordinarily part of the work of the factory or establishment or which is preliminary to the work carried out in or incidental to the purpose of the factory or establishment
Clauses i and iii of section 29 are inapplicable to the facts
Article 252 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 assures that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and of his family  including medical care sickness disa bility   article 7b of the International Convention on Economic Social and Cultural Rights 1966 recognises the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure in particular safe and healthy work ing conditions
Article 39e of the Constitution enjoins the State to direct its policies to secure the health and strength of workers
The right to social justice is a funda mental right
Right to livelihood springs from the right to life guaranteed under Art21
The health and strength of a worker is an integral fact of right to life
The aim of fundamental rights is to create an egalitarian society to free all citizens from coercion or restrictions by society and to make liberty available for all
Right to human digni ty development of personality social protection right to rest and leisure as fundamental human rights to common man mean nothing more than the status without means
To the tillers to the soil wage earners labourers wood cutters rickshaw pullers scavengers and hut dwellers the civil and political right are mere cosmetic  rights
Socio economic and cultural rights are their means and relevant to them to realise the basic aspirations of meaningful right to life
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights International Conventions of Economic 294 Social and Cultural Rights recognise their needs which include right to food clothing housing education right to work leizure fair wages decent working conditions social security right to physical or mental health protec tion or their families as integral part of the right to life
Our Constitution in the Preamble and Part IV reinforce them compendiously as socioeconomic justice a bed rock to an egalitarian social order
The right to social and econom ic justice is thus fundamental right
In World Labour Report 2 at Chapter 9 Safety and Health it is stated that in every three minutes somewhere in the world one worker dies and in every second that passes at least three workers are injured
In India on an average every day 1100 workers are injured and three are killed in industrial establishments vide Lawyer Oct 1987 page 5
In 26th I LO Convention held in Philadephia in April 1944 recommendation No 69 laid down norms for medical care for workers
In October 1943 the Government of India appointed Health Survey and Development Committee known as Sir Joseph Bhore Committee which laid emphasis on Preventive Schemes
ILO Asian Regional Conference held in Delhi in 3947 resolved that in very scheme for medical care in any Asian country the need for the prevention of disease and the improvement of the general standard of health must be con sidered as of almost importance
The Act had culminated in its birth of these recommendations providing in a limited area social security to the employees from health and occu pational hazards
The term health implies more than an absence of sick ness
Medical care and health facilities not only protect against sickness but also ensures stable man power for economic development
Facilities of health and medical care generate devotion and dedication to give the workers  best physically as well as mentally in productivity
It enables the worker to enjoy the fruit of his labour to keep him physically fit and mentally alert for leading a successful economic social and cultural life
The medical facilities are therefore part of social security and like gilt edged security it would yield immediate return in the increased production or at any rate reduce absentecism on grounds of sickness etc
Health is thus a state of complete physical mental and social well being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity
In the light of articles 22 to 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights International Conven tion on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and in the light of socio economic justice assured in our Constitution right to health is a fundamental hUman right to workmen
The maintenance of health is a most imperative constitutional goal whose realisation requires interaction by many social and economic factors
Just and favourable condition of work implies to ensure 295 safe and healthy working conditions to the workmen
The periodical medical treatment invigorates the health of the workmen and harnesses their human resources
Prevention of occupational disabilities generates devotion and dedication to duty and enthuse the workmen to render efficient service which is a valuable asset for greater productivity to the employer and national production to the State
Yet in the report of the Committee on Labour Welfare 1969 in paragraph 5
77of Chapter 5 reveals that private employers generally feel that this burden shall not be cast upon them
 The Act aims at relieving the employees from health and occupational hazards
The interpretation calls for in this case is of the meaning of the meanings supervision  and agent  in s29 ii of the Act
The legal interpretations is not an activity sui generis
The purpose of the enactment is the touch stone of interpretation and every effort would be to give effect to it
The judge acts as a vehicle of communication between the authors and the recipients
The end result is to promote rule of law and to enliven social order and humane relations
In Senior Electric Inspector  Others vs Laxmi Narayan Chopra  Ors  at p 156 K Subba Rao J as he then was for unanimous Court held thus In a modern progressive society it would be unreasonable to confine the intention of a Legislature to the meaning attributable to the word used at the time the law was made for a modern Legislature making laws to govern a society which is fast moving must be presumed to be aware of an enlarged meaning the same concept might attract with the march of time and with the revolutionary changes brought about in social economic political and scientific and other fields of human activity
Indeed unless a contrary intention appears an interpretation should be given to the words used to take in new facts and situations if the words are capable of comprehending them In M Pentiah  Ors
vs Muddala Veermallappa  Ors  at p 313 in a separate but concurrent judgment Sarkar J held Where the language of a statue in its ordi nary meaning and grammatical construction leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment or to some inconven 296 ience or absurdity hardship or injustice presumably not intended a construction may be but upon it which modifies the meaning of the word and even the structure of the sentence
This court approved the ratio in Seaford Court Estates Ltd vs
Asher at 164 Denning LJ who said When a defect appears a judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the draftsman
He must set to work on the constructive task of finding the intention of Parliament  and then he must supplement the written word so as to give force and life to the inten tions of the legislature  
A judge should ask himself the question how if the makers of the Act had themselves come across his ruck in the texure of it they would have straightened it out  He must then do as they would have done
A judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven but he can and should iron out the creases
I conceive it my duty therefore so read the new Act unless I am prevented by the intrac tability of the language used as to make it carry out the obvious intention of the legis lature
In Massachusetts Bonding  Insurance Co vs United States of America  ed 2d 189 Frankfurther J speaking per himself joined by Reed Clark and Brennan JJ
held at headnotes 8  9 thus On more than one occasion but evidently not frequently enough Judge Learned Hand has warned against restricting the mean of a statute to the meaning of its plain words
There is no surer way to misread any document than to read it literally  Of course one begins with the words of a statute to ascer tain its meaning but one does not end with them
The notion that the plain meaning of the words of a statute defines the meaning of the statute reminds one of TH Huxley s gray observation that at times a theory survives long after its brains are knocked out
 One would suppose that this particular theory of statutory construction had had its brains knocked out in Boston Sand  Gravel Cv
United States   48   177  The words of this legisla tion are as plain as the Court finds them to be only if the 1947 amendment is read in misleading isolation
An amendment is not a repeal
An amendment is part of the legisla tion it amends
The 1947 amendment to the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946 must be read to harmonise with the central purpose of the original 297 Act
The central purpose of the original Act was to allow recovery against the United States on the basis and to the extent of recoveries for like torts committed by private tortfeasors in the State in which the act or omission giving rise to the claim against the United States occurred
The 1947 amendment filled the gap a very small gap that was disclosed in the scheme formulated by the 1946 Act
In Atma Ram Mittal vs Ishwar Singh Punia   this Court held that the purpose of interpretation in a social amelioration legislation is an imperative irrespec tive of anything else
It was further held that the con tents subject matter the effects and consequences or the spirit and reason of the law shall be taken into account
The words must be construed with the imagination of purpose behind them
emphasis supplied Therefore in an attempt to construe the provisions of the statute construction as a balancing wheel should be meaningful so as to make the statute workable and not to render it futile or sterile
Whenever strict interpretation of the statute gives  rise to unjust situation or results the Judges can ensure their good sense to remedy it by reading words in if necessary so as to do what Parliament would have done had they had the situation in mind
The meaning of the same words in a statute may be mended in the laborynth of interpretation and may be enlarged or restrict ed in order to harmonise them with the legislative intention of the entire statute
The spirit of the statute would prevail over the literal meaning
The jurisprudence and principle therefore in such a situation would be the contextual interpretation to subserve the constitutional scheme and to alongate the legislative purpose harmonising the individual interest with the community good so as to effectuate social transformation envisioned in the preamble of the Constitution
Let me therefore consider the arebit of the word supervision  under s29 ii of the Act
In Webster Comprehensive Dictionary International Edition the word supervision  has been defined at page 1260 in Vol
II as authority to direct or supervise supervise means have a general oversight of 
In Corpus Juris Secundum Vol 83 at page 900 it is stated that The word supervision is not of the precise import and when not limited by the context is broad enough to cover more than one subject
It implies oversight and direction and does not necessarily exclude the doing of all manual labour but may properly include the taking of an active part in the work
Supervision is defined as meaning the 298 act of overseeing or supervising having general oversight of especially as an officer vested with authority inspec tion oversight superintendence
 The Words and Phrases Permanent Edition Vol
40A defines that the Supervision means oversight an act of occupation of supervision in spection
Supervision is an act of overseeing or supervi sion having general oversight of especially as an officer vested with authority inspection oversight superintend ence Control is the act of superintending care and foresight for purpose of directing and with authority to direct power or authority to check or restrain restraining or directing influence regulating power
Contract of em ployment to supervise construction of power plant steam distribution system held to require time and attention to work needed to see that it was properly and promptly done regardless of number of hours spent there on
The word supervision is not one of precise import and is broad enough to require either supervisor s constant presence during work supervised or his devotion thereto if only time necessary to see that it complies with contract specifications advise as to details prepare necessary sketches and drawings etc
In Owen vs Evans  Owen Buuilders Ltd 1962 1 Weekly Law Reports 933 the Court of Appeal was called upon to consider the meaning of the words immediate supervision under Building Safety Health and Welfare Regulations 1948
Whether the presence of the supervisor is necessary at all times It was held No Ormerod LJ held that in each case the question must be decided how much supervision is re quired in the circumstance of the case being considered If every move was fraught with danger then clearly supervision of the most constant kind would be demanded and the super visor must be there all the time
On the other hand there may be certain parts of the work if not the Whole of it which do not give rise to any foreseeable danger and in those circumstances it may well be that the intention of the regulation is that supervision need not be so strict
Up john LJ as he then was while agreeing held that the real question is whether there was a supervision for the purposes of the regulation and was that a proper or adequate supervision The regulations are formulated for the protec tion of the workman but at the same time they must be given a practical effect
The degree of supervision must entirely depend upon the task and it cannot mean that there must always be a constant supervision throughout
There may be times during a demolition failing within regulation 795 where a particular operation is a dangerous one
That cannot always be avoided and it may be that the danger is such that the supervisor must give a constant supervision during that time
But there will be other times where the particu lar operation is a simple one involving no danger to a building labourer
Then the supervisor may properly go away and perform other tasks
He may answer to the telephone or supervise other groups
All depends on the fact of each case
299 In Regional Director ESIC vs South India Flour Mills P Ltd  this Court held that the defintion of the term employee  under s29 of the Employ ees  State Insurance Act 1948 is very wide and includes within it any person employed on any work incidental or preliminary to or connected with the work of a factory or establishment
Any work that is conducive to the work of the factory or establishment or that is necessary for the augmentation of the work of the factory or establishment will be incidental or preliminary to or connected within the work of the factory or establishment
The casual employees shall also be brought within it and held that they are entitled to the benefits under the Act
The casual labour employed to construct additional buildings for expansion of the factory were held to be employees under the Act
It was also held that the Act is a piece of social security legis lation enacted to provide for certain benefits to the em ployees in case of sickness etc
It was further held that the endeavour of the Court should be to interpret the provi sions liberally in favour of the persons for whose benefits the enactment has been made
This Court upheld the view taken by AP Karnataka and Punjab and Haryana High Courts in A P State Electricity Board vs Employee s State Insur ance Corporation Hyderabad AP Regional Director Bangalore vs Davangere Cotton Mills and ESIC Chandigarh vs Oswal Woolien Mills Ltd  H FB
that casual employees are employees within the meaning of the term employee defined in s29 of the Act
In Birohichand Sharma vs First Civil Judge Nagpur  Ors  this Court considered whether the piece rate worker is a worker within the meaning of s21 of the 
The facts found were that there was no fixed hours
They made payment to the work done at piece rate
It was open to the workmen to absent from work without leave
They were not given any specific work but the management had the right to reject emphasis supplied the Bidis prepared by them if the Bidis do not come upto the proper standard
On those facts it was held the right of rejection is a supervision connecting the work and the employment
Accordingly it was held them to be workmen
The same ratio was followed in DC Dewan Mohideen Sahib  Sons vs The Industrial Tribunal Madras
  In Nagpur Electric Light  Power Co Ltd vs Regional Director ESIC 1967 3 SCR Reprint 92 the employees employed outside the factory or establishment as Cable Jointer
Mistri Lineman Coolies and Vanman for inspection of lines digging the pits erection distribution and service  line were held to be employees within the meaning of s29 i of the Act In Kirloskar Pneumatic Co Ltd vs Employees  State Insur ance Cor 300 poration a division Bench of the Bombay High Court speaking through my learned brother PB Sawant J as he then was also took the same view and held that the employees engaged for repairs site clearing construc tion of buildings etc
of the principal employer are em ployees within the meaning of s29 of the Act
In Royal Talkies Hvderabad  Ors
vs Employees State Insurance Corporation  interpreting s29 ii of the Act this Court held that the Cycle Stand or Canteen are for better amenities to the customers and improvements of busi ness in Cinema
The appellant as the owner leased out the Cycle Stand and Canteen under instrument of leases to the contractors who employed their own employees to run the Canteen and the Cycle Stand
It was held that vis a vis the employees of the Contractors the cinema owner was held to be the principal employer
It was further held that it is enough if the employee does some work which is ancilliary incidental or has relevance or linked with the job of the establishment amenities or facilities to the cine goers has connection with the work of the establishment
The employees of the Canteen and the Cycle Stand were held to have been employed in connection with the work of the establishment
The case Ms PM Patel  Sons  Ors
vs Union of India  Ors
  though arose under the  the principle laid therein applies on all fours to the facts of the case
The appellants therein were engaged in the manu facture and sale of Bidis
The work of rolling Bidis was entrusted to the contractors who in turn got the work pre pared at workers homes after obtaining materials either directly from the manufacturer or through the contractors
The contractors treated the workers as their own employees and get their work done at the workers  premises or contrac tors  premises
It was contended that the workers engaged by the contractors were not their workmen under that Act
This Court by a Bench of three Judges negatived their contention and held that in the context of conditions and the circum stances in which the home workers or manufacturer go about their work including receiving of raw materials rolling of Bidis at home and delivering them to the manufacturer sub ject to the right of rejection there is sufficient evidence of the requisite degree of control and supervision for establishing relationship of master and servant between the manufacturer and the home workers
This ratio does support the conclusion that a connecting link between the finished product and the work of the establishment is sufficient neither the manner of actual performance of the duties decisive nor the actual control or the supervision of the work a material ingredient
Incidental connection with the ultimate business activities of the manufacturers and right to rejection is the con 301 trol and would be the balancing wheel to attract the provi sions therein
The extended purposive construction was applied to give effect to the social security provided under the Employees Provident Fund  red Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952
In Superintendent of post Office vs PK Rajamma 1977 3SCR 678 the question was whether the extra departmental agents serving in Post and Telegraph Department were agents or held civil post within the meaning of article 31112 of the Constitution
This Court while holding that they held civil post attracting Art3112 of the Constitution approved the passage from Halsbury s Laws of England Hailsham edition of the distinction between agents servants or independent contractors
The contractual relation therein inter se does not apply to the tacts of this case
The Act does not give its own definition of the word supervision
Therefore it must be construed in the con text the ultimate purpose the Act aims to serve and the object behind the Act ie to extend sickness benefits and to relieve the employee from occupational hazards consistent with the constitutional and human rights scheme
Under the Electricity Act and the Rules the Corporation licencee is enjoined to performthe acts and duties contemplated thereun der to lay overhead lines underground cables their repairs and maintenance thereof etc
It authorised under the contract the immediate employer to perform on its behalf those acts and duties
The immediate employer would get the work done through their employees employed for that purpose
It is not a sporadic work but a constant and on going proc ess so long as the licencee generates transmits and sup plies electrical energy to the consumers of their supply area
Had the principal employer performed those acts and duties through its employees indisputably
their employees would be covered under the Act though the work was got done at highways or at places other than the factory or the establishment
When the principal employer authorises the respondents as its contractors under contracts the need for constant supervi sion is obviated relegating that function to its immediate employers
Otherwise the need for contracts would be redun dant
The Corporation retained under the contract the power of acceptance or rejection of the work done or super vision effected in maintenance of the work got done by the immediate employer subject to over all supervision by the Electrical Inspector on behalf of the State Government
The supervision in the Iact situation is not the day to day supervision but legal control ie right to accept or reject the work done or maintenance effected
The exercise of right of acceptance or rejection is the supervision as envisaged in the contract between the principal employer and the immediate employer
It would supply the needed unifying or connecting 302 thread between the constitutional creed of social justice ie social security under the Act and supervision of the acts or duties by the principal employer vis a vis the employees of the immediate employer under the contract who ultimately perform them on behalf of the principal employer
Undoubtedly in a bilateral contract between the corporation and the respondents qua their rights and liabilities under the contracts strict interpretation of the words engrafted therein be of paramount relevance and call for attention as per Contract Act
But in the context of the statutory inter pretation of supervision under the Act of the works under taken under the contract the interest of the workmen or the welfare schemes for the employees under the Act interposed and call attention to and need primacy
In its construction the courts must adopt contextual approach to effectuate the statutory animation namely social security
The literal interpretation would feed injustice in perpetuity denying to the employees of sickness benefit etc
under the Act which should be avoided lest the purpose of the Act would be frustrated
The contention that the respondents being independent contractors are not agents of the licencee corporation is also devoid of force
It is seen that under sections 15  20 etc
and the relevant rules the authorisation given by the corpo ration through the media of the contracts enabled the re spondents to step into its shoes to do the acts or perform the duties under the Electricity Act and Rules which are ordinarily of the Corporation
The contract is an authorisa tion to do those acts on behalf of the principal employer
The application of the golden rule to the word agency under the between the respondents and the corporation perhaps does not encompass agency in strict sense under the Act
But public policy of the Act the constitutional and human right s philosophy to provide social security to protect the health and strength of the workers must be kept at the back of the mind to construe the word agent under s29 ii of the Act in contra dis tinction with the bilateral stipulations under the contract
In this regard public policy interposes and plays a vital role to read into the contracts the extended meaning of agency to bring about connecting links between the respond ents and the licencee corporation
Lest the contract if intended to deny welfare benefits to workmen would be opposed to public policy and would become void under s23 of the 
Such an intention would be avoided by reading into the contract the extended meaning of agency but not fiduciary
Chitty on Contrac is 26th Edition in paragraph 2502 at page 4 stated of the use of the terms agent and agency
Some persons who describe themselves or are described by others as agents are not really such in any legal sense of 303 the word but rather independent merchants dealers con sultants or intermediaries
Others may be agents in the sense that they owe the internal duties of the agent to his principal mainly the fiduciary duties 
The substance of the matter prevails over the form and the use of the words agent or agency  or even a denial that they are applicable is not conclusive that any particular type of relationship exists
emphasis supplied
In AG Guest Anson s Law of Contract
26th Edition at page308 it is stated that the application of cannons of public policy to particular instances necessarily varies with the progressive development of public opinion and morality but as Lord Wright has said extra judicially Public policy like any other branch of the common law ought to be and I think is governed by the judicial use of precedents
If it is said that rules of
public policy have to be moulded to suit new conditions of a changing world that is true but the same is true of the principles of the common law generally  In Prenn vs Simmonds 1971 1 Weekly Law Reports 1381 HL Lord Wilberforce laid the rule that in construing a written agreement evidence of negotiations or of the par ties  intentions ought not to be received by the court and that evidence should be restricted to evidence of factual background known to the parties at or before the date of the contract including evidence of the genesis and objective ly the aim of the transaction
The contractors respondents knew at the date of the agreements that the Corporation as Principal employer is under statutory obligation to execute or keep executed the works and keep them repaired and mainrained as an integral activity of generation transmission and distribution of the electrical energy to the consumers within their area of supply
On authorisation the respondents executed and kept executiug the works and repairs or kept them repaired and the maintenance thereof effected through their employees which in law is on behalf of the Corporation principal employer
The genesis and aim of the transaction was to act on behalf of the Corporation
The agency of the respondent with the Corporation thus springs into being
The prohibi tion of the qualified supervisors while in service of the respondents to disengage themselves with third parties in terms of the contract was only to extract unstinted and exclusive devotion to duty and no further
It stands as no impediment to construe that the respondents are agents to the Corporation as immediate employers
Accordingly I hold that the employees working under the respondent perform their duties in execution of the works repairs and maintenance thereof in connection with the generation transmission and distribution of 304 the electrical energy by the Corporation ficensee
The Corporation is the Principal employer The respondents imme diate employers execute the work etc
under the supervision of the Corporation as its agents
Their employees in law work under the supervision of the principal employer corpo ration
They are covered under s29 ii of the Act entitling them to the sickness benefits etc
envisaged therein
and the respondents are liable to make their con tribution to the Employees Insurance Fund
The appeals are accordingly allowed
The writ appeal Nos 16  43886 and matter No1650 of 1985 dated April 4 1988 in the Calcutta High Court stand dismissed confirming the order of the learned single Judge dated December 11 1986 but in the circumstances parties are directed to bear their own costs
VPR Appeals dis missed


Summary:
On 1331976 it was found that the respondent sold adulterated cuminJira
The Food Inspector purchased the Jira under the provisions of the Act and on analysis the Public Analyst found that it was adulterated
The respondent was charged us161ai read with section 71 of the 
The Trial Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that his father was the owner of the shop and assuming that if that fact had been brought to the notice of the sanction ing authority section 20 of the Act it would not have permit ted to prosecute the respondent the son of the owner of the shop and relying on the Jagannath Sahu s 252 case 19732 Cuttack Weekly Reporter 1536
The High Court on appeal confirmed the acquittal order of the trial court
On the question whether it was necessary that the respondent should be the owner of the shop for being prose cuted for the offences section 161ai read with section 71 of the Act allowing the appeal filed by the State this Court HELD 1
The Act is a welfare legislation to prevent health hazards by consuming adulterated food
The mens tea is not an essential ingredient
It is a social evil and the Act prohibits commission of the offences under the Act
The essential ingredient is sale to the purchaser by the vendor
It is not material to establish the capacity of the person vis a vis the owner of the shop to prove his authority to sell the adulterated food exposed for sale in the shop
It is enough for the prosecution to establish that the person who sold the adulterated article of food had sold it to the purchaser including the Food Inspector  and that Food Inspector purchased the same in strict compliance with the provisions of the Act
256 BC 2
The sanctioning authority has to consider the mate rial placed before it whether the offence of adulteration of food was committed and punishable under the Act
Once that satisfaction is reached and the authority is competent to grant the sanction the sanction is valid
It is not neces sary for the sanctioning authority to consider that the person sold is the owner servant agent or partner or relative of the owner or was duly authorised in this behalf
256 C D 3
Grant of sanction to prosecute for an offence under the Act is a condition precedent
If no valid sanction was granted by the authority certainly the accused is entitled to the benefit of statutory infraction though it is techni cal and be acquitted of the offence
The relevant criteria under section 201 is the competence of the officer to grant the sanction for the offence
it does not postulate whether the person sold should be the owner or a servant or a person on behalf of the owner son of the owner
255 A 4
No person  shall himself or any person on his behalf manufacture for sale or store or sell or distribute any adulterated food etc
The phrase himself or any person on his behalf obviously included any other person like servant son father or agent irre 253 spective of the relationship legal or jural etc
The person so sold during the course of business either the owner or the person that sold the adulterated food or article of food or both are liable to prosecution
255 B C 5
If the article sold by a vendor is not of the na ture substance or quality demanded by the purchaser who is to purchase the article is adulterated
If the quality or variety of the article fall below the prescribed standard of its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability is also adulterated
The food or article of food is adulterated if it is not of the nature substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and sold by the seller and is to his prejudice or contains any foreign substance in excess of its prescribed limit so as to effect injuriously the nature substance or quality thereof
The word adulterated  was used widely
254 F 6
As 15 years have passed by from the date of the offence the ends of justice may not serve to send the respondent to imprisonment
Suffice that he bas undergone all these years the agony of the prosecution
In the cir cumstances a sentence of fine of a sum of Rs500 is imposed in default the imprisonment for a period of one month
256 G Jagannath Sahu vs Food Inspector Jaipur Municipality 19732 Cuttack Weekly Reporter 1556 overruled
Sarjoo Prasad vs The State of UP 1961 3 SCR 324 Ibrahim Haji Moideen  Anr
vs Food Inspector  Ant 1976 2 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 66 referred to