THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1064 of 2008 JUDGMENT: The appellant is a Weavers Cooperative Society and it is engaged in the activity of weaving. The Inspector of E.S.I. Corporation made a visit to the premises of the society in June, 1989. He prepared a statement to the effect that 32 to 35 employees are engaged by the appellant between June, 1989 and May, 1990. On that basis, he initiated proceedings to bring the appellant under the purview of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’). A sum of Rs.67,342/- was demanded as contribution. The appellant challenged the said proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class to Try Offences under the E.S.I. Act and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad by filing E.I.C.No.1 of 2004. The Tribunal dismissed the application, through judgment, dated 01.08.2006. The same is challenged in this appeal filed under Section 82 of the Act. Heard Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Pushpinder Kaur, learned counsel for the respondents. It is, no doubt, true that the principal activity of weaving is undertaken by the members of the society and that the members cannot be treated as employees. Had it been a case where the members of the society, who are fairly large in number, are treated as employees, things would have been different altogether. The reason is that what is paid to a member is contribution and not salary and thereby, he cannot be treated as employee. In the instant case, the Inspector prepared a report, marked as Ex.R1, which contained detailed particulars not only of the members, but also of the employees. He was clear in his mind as to the contributions paid to the members on the one hand, and salaries paid to the employees on the other. He derived support to his report from Ex.R2, the balance sheet of the society, for the corresponding period. The Tribunal discussed the matter at length with reference to the oral and documentary evidence and arrived at a just and proper conclusion. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. It is directed that the appellant shall be entitled to pay the balance of the amount, within six weeks, without interest. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:02.09.2009 Kdl