Case: Transport Corporation Of India Vs. Employees State Insurance Corpn.

link with the object of the establishment.... It becomes, therefore, obvious that once it is found that the employees of the Bombay branch undertake transport of goods to and from Bombay which is the main work of the principal establishment at Secunderabad in Andhra Pradesh, moment the main office in Andhra Pradesh is covered by the Act, the Bombay branch which is an integral part of the commercial activities of the appellant, cannot be held to be outside the sweep of the Act. 27. We may also refer to a three Judge bench decision of this Court in Nagpur Electric Light & Power Co. Ltd. v. Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation etc. (supra) (1967)IILLJ40SC wherein this Court had an occasion to examine the width of the definition employee as found in Section 2(9) of the Act in connection with the factual matrix wherein persons doing non-manual work outside the factory premises claimed to be covered by the sweep of the Act by being treated as employees of the factory. Emphasising the term employee in connection with the work of the factory it was held that All the employees of the disputed categories clerks or otherwise were employed in connection with the work of the factory, that is to say, in connection with the work of transforming and transmitting electrical power. Some of the employees were not engaged in manual labour. But a person doing non-manual work can be an employee within the meaning of Section 2(9)(i) if he is employed in connection with the work of the factory. The duties of he administrative staff are directly connected with the work of the factory. In view of the aforesaid well established legal position, therefore, it has to be held that as it is seen that the main work of the appellant-Corporation is to engage in transportation of goods to and through its various branches to different parts of the country, the Bombay branch facilitating and directly connected with this main activity of the principal office and working under the complete control and supervision of the appellants main office, cannot be treated to be beyond the sweep of the Act once employees at Bombay branch are held to be employees of the appellant-Corporation. It could not be held on facts of this case that the Bombay branch was functioning as a separate and independent entity not being controlled or supervised by the Secunderabad principal office so as to enable the appellant-Corporation to contend before the authorities that its Bombay branch was not its limb and was an independent establishment by itself as if it was run by some independent transport company. 28. Before parting with the discussion on this point, it is necessary to keep in view the salient fact that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to provide benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity, employment injury and for certain other matters in relation thereto. It is enacted with a view to ensuring social welfare and for providing safe insurance cover to employees who were likely to suffer from various physical illnesses during the course of their employment. Such a beneficial piece of legislation has to be construed in its correct perspective so as to fructify the legislative intention underlying its enactment. When two views are possible on its applicability to a given set of employees, that view, which furthers the legislative intention should be preferred to the one which would frustrate it. It is difficult to appreciate how it could be contended by the appellant with any emphasis that an employee working at its head office in Secunderabad would be governed by the beneficial sweep of the Act as admittedly the head office employees are covered by the Act, but once such an employee, whether working on the administrative side or connected with the actual transportation of goods, if transferred to the Bombay branch even with his consent, cannot be governed by the beneficial provisions of the Act. 29. Dealing with this very Act, a three Judge bench of this Court in the case of The Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Venkatiah and Anr. (1963)IILLJ638SC , speaking through Gajendragadhar, J., (as he then was) held, accepting the contention of the learned Counsel Mr. Delia, that: ...It is a piece of social legislation intended to confer specified benefits on workmen to whom it applies, and so, it would be inappropriate to attempt to construe the relevant provisions in a technical or a narrow sense. This position cannot be disputed. But in dealing with the plea raised by Mr. Dolia that the section should be liberally construed, we cannot overlook the fact that the liberal construction must ultimately flow from the words used in the section. If the words used in the section are capable of two constructions one of which is shown patently to assist the achievement of the object of the Act, courts would be justified in preferring that construction to the other which may not be able to further the object of the Act.... As we have already seen earlier, the express phraseology of Section 2(9) of the Act defining an employee read with Section 38 of the Act clearly projects the legislative intention of spreading the beneficial network of the Act sufficiently wide for covering all employees working for the main establishment covered by the Act even though actually stationed at different branches outside the State wherein the head office of he establishment is located. In any case, the said construction can reasonably flow from the aforesaid statutory provisions. If that is so, any other technical or narrower construction, even if permissible, cannot be countenanced, as that would frustrate the legislative intent underlying the enactment of such a beneficial social security scheme. 30. In the result, the impugned decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be found fault with and remains well sustained on the statutory scheme as applicable to the admitted and well established facts on record.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]However, Sub-sections 5&6 of Section 1 of the Act are relevant for our present purpose.A mere look at these aforesaid provisions shows that the appropriate Government is constituted by the Parliament to be its delegate to uniformly apply the provisions of the Act to any other establishment or class of establishments as found fit for its applicability. Proviso to Sub-section 5 seeks to extend uniform applicability of the act to similar establishments or class of establishments within that part if the provisions have already been extended to similar establishment or class of establishments in another part of that State. The operation of the proviso to Sub-section 5 of Section 1 can be illustrated by taking a simple example. As in the present case, there is no dispute between the parties that the State of Andhra Pradesh, in exercise of its powers under Section 1(5), extended the Act, amongst others, to cover road motor transport establishments whereon twenty or more persons are employed, or were employed for wages on any day of the preceding twelve months of the notification in areas mentioned in Column (2) of the Schedule. If similar road motor transport establishment was located in any other part of the State of Andhra Pradesh not covered by the listed areas in Column (2) of the Schedule of the notification, as for example Prakasam District of the State of Andhra Pradesh, any road motor transport operator functioning at Prakasam District would also get covered by the sweep of the aforesaid notification being owner of similar road motor transport establishment.It is, therefore, obvious that as the appellants establishment was not under the control of the Central Government or a railway administration etc., it was the State Government which was the appropriate Government for deciding the applicability of the Act to the appellants concern. There is no dispute between the parties that so far as the appellants registered office, being head office at Secunderabad in Andhra Pradesh was concerned, it got validly covered by the appropriate notification issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh under Section 1(5).As noted earlier, the Act, which is a Central Act having all India operation, covers from the very inception, factories situated in any part of India. So far as the term establishment is concerned, it is not defined under the Act, but the term employee as defined under the Act has a direct connection with the term establishment in which he or she may be employed for wages in or in connection with the work of the establishment.It becomes at once clear that if a person is employed on wages in connection with the work of establishment to which the Act applies and if the establishment is immediate employer of such a person under whose supervision he has to undertake the work and can be said to be employed by or through the establishment concerned, the immediate employer, being such establishment, under whose supervision or under whose agents supervision the employee works will get covered by the sweep of the Act.A conjoint reading of Sub-sections 9, 13, & 17 of Section 2, therefore, clearly shows that if the head office or the registered office of the appellant is controlling its Bombay branch, the employee working in its Bombay branch can obviously be treated to be an employee working under the supervision of the principal employer or his agent. Consequently, once such principal employer like the appellant, having head office at Secunderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh, is covered by the sweep of the Act, automatically employees working in its branches, may be anywhere in India, including the branch at Bombay would get covered by the sweep of the Act. That would be the direct consequence of the applicability of the Act by the notification of the appropriate Government, namely, the Andhra Pradesh Government under Section 1(5) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the Andhra Pradesh Government was the appropriate Government so far as the appellants head office situated at Secunderabad was concerned. It is easy to visualise that if the head office of the appellant was not situated in Andhra Pradesh but in any other State say Tamil Nadu or Gujarat, then the appropriate Government in that case would have been either Tamil Nadu or Gujarat. But once its head office, being registered office, is admittedly situated in Andhra Pradesh, it was only that appropriate Government which could apply the provisions of the Act to all its employees whether working at the head office or any of its branches in any part of the country, being the very limb and interconnected organs of the very same establishment of the appellant. Once the provisions of the Act got applied to the appellants establishment by virtue of the aforesaid notification issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh, the appellant becomes liable to be registered under the Act as per Section 2AOnce the definition of the term employee as found in Section 2(9)(i), read with the inclusive part thereof, is read in juxtaposition with Section 38, it becomes at once clear that as the appellants establishment, namely, road motor transport establishment is covered by the Act, all its employees, whether working in the head office or at its branch offices in any part of the country, including the State of Maharashtra, would get entitled to be insured as per the beneficial provisions of Section 38.It has also to be kept in view that the present Corporation functioning under the Act is a Central Corporation known as Employees State Insurance Corporation, which was established by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Act and it has all India operation. It operates through its various regional office spread over the country. It cannot be seriously disputed that employees working at the appellants branch at Bombay are employees of the Appellant-Corporation.When Section 40(1) is read in the light of the definition of the term immediate employer as found in Section 2(13) and the term principal employer as found in Sub-section 17 (iii) of Section 2, it would be clear that the appellant, being the principal employer of the employees at Bombay branch, cannot escape from its liability to pay contribution, in the first instance, even though the Bombay branch employees are employed by the immediate employer, being local agent of the appellant principal employer stationed at Secunderabad in Andhra Pradesh. In fact, so far as the appellant is concerned, employees of its Bombay branch, even though working under its local manager, have a direct nexus with the appellant being the principal employer or the main employer who can be said to be directly employing the employees at the Bombay branch. In fact there is no immediate employer in between the appellant on the one hand and its Bombay branch employees on the other. The question of immediate employer would arise only when the employees are working under a contractor who carries out the work of the principal employer under the contract. On the facts of the present case, therefore, we are not concerned with any such immediate employer. So far as the employees at Bombay branch are concerned, for them, the appellant is the employer and they are the employees and, therefore, they will be directly governed by Sections 38 & 39 of the Act.The term factory or establishment is defined by Regulation 2(i) to mean a factory or establishment to which the Act applies. It was brought to our notice that so far as the appellant is concerned, it has got employers code number because it is covered by the sweep of the notification issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh as its registered office is situated in Secunderabad in Andhra Pradesh. We are also informed that the branch at Bombay is given a sub-code number. It, therefore, becomes obvious that so far as the employers code number is concerned, it is given only to the appellant, being governed by the Act, having its head office at Secunderabad in Andhra Pradesh which admittedly is within the sweep of the notification issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh.When we turn to Form-01 prescribed in Appendix A to the Regulations, we find that the name of the factory or establishment and full registered address and employers code No. etc. are to be mentioned in the form. Location of the establishment is found at item No. 4 of the said form which deals with the State and the District and the town or village where the establishment is situated. Item No. 11 of the said Form-01 requires the establishment to furnish information whether any branch office of the establishment is functioning for sale, purchase advertisement and their business at places other than the place mentioned at item 4 or anywhere in India. This clearly shows that information regarding branch office of such establishments functioning in any part of India has also to be furnished by the establishment seeking employers code numberWhen we turn to Form-6, we find the requirement of mentioning of employers code number and name of the local office, name of the establishment and details about the period for which the contribution is remitted to the office of the Corporation, Details of the employers and employees share of contributions in respect of the insured persons are also to be given in the prescribed Form. When this Form-6 is read with Sections 38, 39 and the definition in Section 2(9) defining the employee and Section 2(17) dealing with principal employer, it becomes at once clear that the appellant, being the main employer of its employees working in the Bombay branch, would squarely get covered by the relevant provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. It would be liable to collect and remit the relevant contributions of the employees and the employer to the authorities to enable the employees at its head office and its branches to get the medical benefits as insured persons covered by the benevolent scheme of the Act. In the light of the aforesaid statutory scheme there is no escape from the conclusion that the employees of Bombay branch of the appellants establishment would get covered by the beneficial sweep of the Act or not, expressly in the light of well established factual data on the record of this case.When we turn to Form-6, we find the requirement of mentioning of employers code number and name of the local office, name of the establishment and details about the period for which the contribution is remitted to the office of the Corporation, Details of the employers and employees share of contributions in respect of the insured persons are also to be given in the prescribed Form. When this Form-6 is read with Sections 38, 39 and the definition in Section 2(9) defining the employee and Section 2(17) dealing with principal employer, it becomes at once clear that the appellant, being the main employer of its employees working in the Bombay branch, would squarely get covered by the relevant provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. It would be liable to collect and remit the relevant contributions of the employees and the employer to the authorities to enable the employees at its head office and its branches to get the medical benefits as insured persons covered by the benevolent scheme of the Act. In the light of the aforesaid statutory scheme there is no escape from the conclusion that the employees of Bombay branch of the appellants establishment would get covered by the beneficial sweep of the Act or not, expressly in the light of well established factual data on the record of this case.The appellant-Corporation, which has its registered head office at Secunderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh, has Bombay branch being one of its branches, apart from there being a chain of other branches in the rest of the country with which we are not concerned in the present proceedings. So far as the Bombay branch is concerned, a clear finding of fact is reached by the High Court in its impugned judgment to the effect that the business carried on by the appellant is transport of goods and materials all over the country and the nature of this business is such that it cannot be carried on only by the establishment at Andhra Pradesh without dependence on its branch offices. The goods are loaded at various places and in various branches spread over the country and also unloaded at various places. The branch office register the orders, accept the goods and materials to be transported from Bombay and to be received at Bombay. It is, therefore, obvious that the transport business carried on at the principal office as well as at its branch office is totally interdependent. In the light of the aforesaid factual position, which is well established on record, we have to consider whether the branch office at Bombay is a limb and part and parcel of the parent establishment, being the main establishment at Secunderabad, which is directly covered by the provision of the Act pursuant to the notification issued under Section 1(5) of the Act by the Andhra Pradesh Government. Learned senior counsel for the appellant Shri Pai has produced additional documents before us in support of his contentions that the Bombay branch is an independent entity. However, a close look at the said documents itself shows that it is not so. The very first page of the compilation shows that B. Lugani & Associates, Chartered Accountants, entrusted with the preparation of accounts by the appellant have issued a certificate dated 18th November, 1998 which shows that though they are the internal auditors of the Delhi region of the appellant and though they are preparing expenses and income account of the regional office at Delhi, the annual balance-sheet of the appellant is prepared by consolidation of the trial balance-sheets of all the regional offices of the appellant. Meaning thereby, the consolidated balance-sheet showing the business and activities of all the branches is prepared comprehensively for the appellant on all India basis. The Annual Report of 1996-97 issued by the registered office at Secunderabad also shows comprehensive activities of the appellant throughout India and would naturally include the working of all the branches. A consolidated balance-sheet is also prepared, accordingly.15. Rest of the objects also deal with the permissible activities of the appellant-Corporation all throughout India which naturally would be through its branches spread over various parts of the country. None of the objects is confined only to the working and activities of the head office at Secunderabad or for that matter confined merely to the territorial limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh. It, therefore, becomes obvious that the appellant concern is a concern which operates on all India level through its branches which are its part and parcel and are its own limbs. It is through the branches that its main objects as an all India public carrier, get fructified and achieved. May be, for accounting purposes, different branches may be maintaining separate accounts regarding administrative set up under the local offices, but ultimately complete control, supervision and management is by the principal head office at Secunderabad. All the activities of the appellant-Corporation are obviously carried out through the active working and co-operation of all the branches and the employees working at these branches. Even a copy of general power of attorney produced with the additional documents shows that the regional managers controlling the branches in different regions of the country have to act only on the basis of the general power of attorney given to them by the appellant-Corporation and the appellant-Corporation is stated as the principal, while the power of attorney holders regional managers are shown as merely its agents at regional offices under which the branches work, obviously for carrying out the essential objects and purposes of the appellant-Corporation itself. All this factual data which remains well sustained and admitted on record, leaves no room for doubt that the branches of the appellant, though spread over different parts of the country, are part and parcel of the main establishment of the company which remains the employer and the employees in different branches remain its employees.We asked a pointed question to the learned senior counsel for the appellant Shri Pai as to whether employees working at the head office in Secunderabad could be transferred to any of its branches, on instructions, he stated that they can be transferred by their consent. That shows that there is unity of relationship between the employees working in different branches and those working at the head office on the one hand and the management of the appellant-Corporation on the other. It is easy to visualise that if learned senior counsel for the appellant Shri Pai is right, then an employee working at the head office in Secunderabad may get all the benefits under the Act but once he is transferred to a branch, maybe with his consent, he would lose such benefit if the branch is not covered by the separate notification under Section 1(5) by the concerned State Government within whose jurisdiction the concerned branch is located. That would create a totally anomalous and incongruous situation which is contra-indicated by factual data on record. There is a complete integrality of working of the employees in different branches and those working in the head office vis-a-vis the single and solitary management being the appellant-Corporation.Learned senior counsel for the appellant, Shri Pai on our query also fairly stated that all these employees working in different branches of the appellant-Corporation, maybe situated within the State of Andhra Pradesh or outside, are all employees of the appellant-Corporation.In view of this admitted position on record, there is no escape from the conclusion that once the appellant-Corporation having its registered head office at Andhra Pradesh is governed by the Act, its branch offices would also automatically get covered by the sweep of the Act by the very same notification.17. The aforesaid apprehension and the difficulties envisaged by learned senior counsel for the appellant Shri Pai are more imaginary than real. Reason is obvious. If the Maharashtra Government being appropriate Government, does not think it fit to apply the Act to transport undertakings in the State of Maharashtra by exercising powers under Section 1(5) of the Act, it would only mean that those independent establishments carrying on transport business in the State of Maharashtra may not be governed by the Act but such a situation would cover only those transport undertakings whose head office and registered offices and branches are situated within the State of Maharashtra. They would form entirely a different class of establishments as compared to the undertakings similar to the appellants undertaking which are covered by the sweep of the notification issued by the appropriate Government like the Andhra Pradesh Government where their head offices are situated and which would, cover all the branches in different parts of the State and outside the State, being part and parcel of the very same establishment. It is easy to visualise that the Act applies to all factories wherever situated in India. That is the legislative intention. But so far as the other establishments are concerned, the appropriate Government within whose territorial jurisdiction the main establishment is situated, meaning thereby, its head office being registered office is located will get covered by the sweep of the notification issued by such appropriate Government acting as delegate of the legislative power entrusted by the Parliament to it. Once the appropriate Government exercises that power, all the establishments situated within the territories of that State will get covered by such a notification. Their branches within the State, admittedly, will be covered by the sweep of the notification read with the proviso of Section 1(5) of the Act. So far as the branches situated outside the State are concerned, if the establishment is covered by the notification being situated within the territories of the State and if on facts it is found that such outside branches have functional integrality with the activities of the main establishment and are directly under the control and supervision of the main establishment, it could not be said that such notification issued by the State has any extra territorial operation. It has only territorial operation. Meaning thereby, it covers within its sweep all establishments situated within the State and covered by the notification and also automatically covers all the branches situated outside the State which are factually found to be mere appendages and limbs and part and parcel of the very same establishment. The Act seeks to bring in its sweep by notifications issued from time to time by appropriate State Governments all the relevant establishment which are required to be covered by the sweep of the Central Act having all India operation. The contention of learned senior counsel for the appellant Shri Pai that such a notification would have extra-territorial operation cannot, therefore, be countenanced.18. Equally unsustainable is his other grievance that if the State of Maharashtra does not apply the Act to the transport undertakings situated within that State then an anomalous situation would arise so far as the Bombay branch of the appellant is concerned. It is obvious that the Bombay branch of the appellant, being part and parcel of the main establishment, covered by the Act will stand entirely on a different footing and will form a separate class of establishments as compared to those transport establishments which are not covered by the Act by any notification of appropriate Government and whose head office and branches are situated within the State of Maharashtra. Such independent establishments may not get covered by the Act in the absence of appropriate notification under Section 1(5) to be issued by the State of Maharashtra. They will form entirely a different class. There is no question of equals being treated unequally under such circumstances.20. It must, therefore, be held that once the factual data clearly points out that the Bombay branch of the appellant concern was a limb of the appellant concern covered by the Act and all its activities were appertaining to the main objects and purposes of the appellant-Corporation and through this branch the appellant was carrying on its activities on an integrated basis, it must be held that once the appellant was governed by the Act on account of the notification issued by the appropriate Government, namely, the State of Andhra Pradesh under Section 1(5) of the Act, and on which there cannot be any dispute, automatically the said notification took in its sweep all such branches of the appellant situated even outside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were having complete functional integrality with the main activities of the establishment, namely, the appellant concern. In fact, but for the branches and their activities, the appellant cannot effectively discharge its objects and purposes for which it is incorporated as seen from its object referred to earlier. Consequently, the apprehension voiced by learned senior counsel for the appellant, Shri Pai, on the score of extra territorial-operation of the notification in question cannot be countenanced nor can the question of supposed arbitrariness or discrimination between the employees of the appellants branch at Bombay and employees of other transport establishments not governed by the Act could effectively survive for consideration.22. In this connection, we may also usefully refer to a decision of three Judge bench of this Court in Kirloskar Brothers Ltd v. Employees State Insurance Corporation (1996)ILLJ1156SC . The question before this Court in the aforesaid decision was as to whether the main office of a factory once governed by the Act would automatically result in covering its regional or branch offices which are situated in a different State even when its branch offices or regional offices were not carrying on any manufacturing process and could not be treated to be independent factories. It was contended before this Court that the branch offices which are merely distributing or selling the goods manufactured by the factory situated in other State could not be covered by the sweep of the Act only because the parent factory was covered by the Act. Rejecting this contention, this Court in para 11 of the Report held as under:The principal test to connect the workmen and employer under the Act to ensure health to the employee being covered under the Act has been held by this Court in Hyderabad Asbestos case (1978)ILLJ181SC , i.e., the employee is engaged in connection with the work of the factory. The test of predominant business activity or too remote connection are not relevant. The employee need not necessarily be the one integrally or predominantly connected with he entire business or trading activities. The true test is control by the principal employer over the employee. That test will alone be the relevant test. The connection between the factory and its predominant products sold or purchased in the establishment or regional offices are irrelevant and always leads to denial of welfare benefits to the employees under the Act. When there is connection between the factory and the finished products which are sold or distributed in the regional offices or establishment and principal employer has control ever employee, the Act becomes applicable. The test laid down by the Orissa High Court, namely, predominant business activity, i.e., sale or distribution of the goods manufactured in the factory at Deewas is not a correct test. It is true that this Court in the special leave petition arising form the Orissa High Court judgment leave was declined holding it to be of peculiar facts.Approving the view expressed by the Andhra Pradesh and the Karnataka High Courts it was held in that case that though the appellant before this Court had its registered office at Poona for sale and distribution of its products from its three factories-one situated at Kirloskarvadi, second at Karad in the State of Maharashtra and the third one at Dewas in the State of Madhya Pradesh, employees of sale or distribution office were also covered by the sweep of the Act being appendages and fully controlled by the parent factory. The aforesaid decision squarely gets attracted on the facts of the present case. It is pertinent to note that it was held in the aforesaid case that though the branch offices being sales and distribution offices of the appellant factory were themselves not factories they were also covered by the sweep of the Act as the principal office, being the factory, was held covered. Almost identical is the situation in the present case. The ratio of this decision holding that Act would apply to a factory in one State and, therefore, will automatically apply to its sales offices in other States even though they themselves are not factories, will equally apply to cases of establishments covered by the Act as per notification issued by the appropriate Government as delegate of central legislature and which notification would automatically cover the branches of such establishments functioning outside the State but as integral part of the same establishment. Once the registered office or the principal office of the appellant is covered by the Act, all its branches in any part of the country would be covered by the Act, if such branches are under the supervision and ultimate control of the principal office at Secunderabad, as factually found herein-above.25. The aforesaid settled legal position, therefore, shows that as per Section 2(9) of the Act an employee of the establishment whether working within the precincts of the main establishment or outside, if carrying on the work of the establishment would be covered by the sweep of the Act moment the main establishment is covered by the Act. It is easy to visualise that after the aforesaid amendment by Act 44 of 1966 Section 2(9) would cover employees working anywhere in branches in connection with the purchase of raw-materials or distribution or sale of products or dealing with administration of the establishment though stationed outside the precincts of the main establishment. Accordingly, the employees who were connected with the administration of the Bombay branch of the appellant-Corporation would be covered by the sweep of Section 2(9) after the aforesaid amendment. If that is so, it would be too incongruous to contend that though the administrative staff of the Bombay branch would be covered, employees actually working for the establishment and directly connected with its main function namely, transport of goods throughout the country and inspecting the goods to be despatched for the appellant from Bombay to outside stations and also connected with receipt and unloading of goods coming from outside Bombay for being further carried within the State of Maharashtra or outside, would not be covered by the sweep of the Act. Such an incongruous and contradictory situation cannot be countenanced by the scheme of the Act especially in the light of clear wording of the definition Section 2(9) along with its relevant amended provisions.It becomes, therefore, obvious that once it is found that the employees of the Bombay branch undertake transport of goods to and from Bombay which is the main work of the principal establishment at Secunderabad in Andhra Pradesh, moment the main office in Andhra Pradesh is covered by the Act, the Bombay branch which is an integral part of the commercial activities of the appellant, cannot be held to be outside the sweep of the Act.In view of the aforesaid well established legal position, therefore, it has to be held that as it is seen that the main work of the appellant-Corporation is to engage in transportation of goods to and through its various branches to different parts of the country, the Bombay branch facilitating and directly connected with this main activity of the principal office and working under the complete control and supervision of the appellants main office, cannot be treated to be beyond the sweep of the Act once employees at Bombay branch are held to be employees of the appellant-Corporation. It could not be held on facts of this case that the Bombay branch was functioning as a separate and independent entity not being controlled or supervised by the Secunderabad principal office so as to enable the appellant-Corporation to contend before the authorities that its Bombay branch was not its limb and was an independent establishment by itself as if it was run by some independent transport company.28. Before parting with the discussion on this point, it is necessary to keep in view the salient fact that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to provide benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity, employment injury and for certain other matters in relation thereto. It is enacted with a view to ensuring social welfare and for providing safe insurance cover to employees who were likely to suffer from various physical illnesses during the course of their employment. Such a beneficial piece of legislation has to be construed in its correct perspective so as to fructify the legislative intention underlying its enactment. When two views are possible on its applicability to a given set of employees, that view, which furthers the legislative intention should be preferred to the one which would frustrate it. It is difficult to appreciate how it could be contended by the appellant with any emphasis that an employee working at its head office in Secunderabad would be governed by the beneficial sweep of the Act as admittedly the head office employees are covered by the Act, but once such an employee, whether working on the administrative side or connected with the actual transportation of goods, if transferred to the Bombay branch even with his consent, cannot be governed by the beneficial provisions of the Act.As we have already seen earlier, the express phraseology of Section 2(9) of the Act defining an employee read with Section 38 of the Act clearly projects the legislative intention of spreading the beneficial network of the Act sufficiently wide for covering all employees working for the main establishment covered by the Act even though actually stationed at different branches outside the State wherein the head office of he establishment is located. In any case, the said construction can reasonably flow from the aforesaid statutory provisions. If that is so, any other technical or narrower construction, even if permissible, cannot be countenanced, as that would frustrate the legislative intent underlying the enactment of such a beneficial social security scheme.30. In the result, the impugned decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be found fault with and remains well sustained on the statutory scheme as applicable to the admitted and well established facts on record.