1. These 14 petitions by owners of Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factories have been heard together as they involve a common legal issue, namely, whether the temporary/seasonal workers and the contract labour employed by the petitioner factories are to be considered in insurable employment of the petitioner factories. This order will dispose of all the 14 petitions.
2. The facts giving rise to these petitions are that the petitioners run their Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factories which operate on seasonal basis. They employ certain workers on permanent basis which include Manager, Accountant, Engineers, Godown Keepers, Clerks and Chowkidars etc., certain workers are employed on temporary basis which include Oilmen, fitters, operators etc. Whose employment continues till the ginning and pressing season of the Cotton lasts and they engage contractors for general process of ginning and pressing of cotton who employ labour as required to carry out the work. The respondent Institution got the petitioners registered under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act and are demanding from the petitioners (payment of contribution in respect of all persons employed by them including the temporary/seasonal staff and the contract labour. The conten--tion of the petitioners is that the employment of persons on temporary/ seasonal basis and of the contract labour does not fall within the purview of `insurable employment' under the Act and as such no contribution in respect of such persons is payable by the. Petitioners Factual aspect of the petitions has not been disputed. Only the legal issue as to whether the temporary/seasonal and contract labour come within the definition of insurable employment and contribution in respect of such persons will be payable by the petitioners requires to be determined. '
3. Mr. Masud Mirza, the learned representative of the petitioners argued that the qualifying period of 15 years for entitlement to benefits normally is not likely to be completed by the temporary/seasonal employees who are employed by the petitioned during the season even if they are employed during every season till they retire. As such it cannot be the intention of the Legislature that employer should be taxed with the payment of contribution in respect of such temporary/seasonal employees when no benefit under the Act will at all accrue to them. This argument of the learned representative of the petitioners has no force. Section 3 of the Act lays down that "all persons employed in an industry or establishment under a contract of service or apprenticeship, whether written or oral, express or implied, shall be insured' in the manner provided by or under this Act." Persons who are excluded from the operation of the Act are specified in section 47. In relation to the petitioners such persons include only the members of employers family residing with the employer in respect of their work for him and persons employed on wages exceeding rupees one thousand per month. No distinction, however, has been made among the different categories of employees viz. Permanent, temporary, whole-time, part-time, seasonal time-rated or piece rated etc. This leaves no room for doubt that an employer is liable to pay contribution in respect of all categories of persons employed by him except A those specifically excluded by section 47 of the Act.
4. The contention that the temporary/seasonal employees will not be able to complete their period of entitlement for the benefits under the Act as they are .Employed hardly for 4 months in a year is fallacious and based on mis--conception. The law does not require a person to complete his period of entitlement in the insurable employment of one and the same employer. It is the aggregate of all his insurable employment with one or more employers which makes up the period of his entitlement. However, since the word of law is very clear on the point of liability of employer to pay contribution in respect of all persons in his insurable employment, there is no reason to revert to the intention of the Legislature for its determination.
5. I, therefore, do not agree with the contention of the petitioners that the provisions of this Act do not apply to persons employed on temporary/ -seasonal basis.
6. The second point argued by the learned representative of the petitioner was in respect of the contract labour - employed by the petitioners. It was argued that in fact the petitioners got certain specific jobs carried out on contract basis. Copies of Agreement between the petitioners and contractors have been produced on record. According to the agreement, the contractors have been assigned jobs on piece-rate basis and it is left to the contractors to appoint their own Labour in sufficient number to complete the jobs as required. In case of unsatisfactory performance by the contractor, the petitioners may terminate the contract and get the balance of work carried out through any other contractor. In the terms of the contracts it has been explicitly stated that the workers employed by the contractors shall be employees of the contractors under the contractors administrative control and the petitioners shall have nothing to do with them. And the contractors shall be responsible for compliance with the provisions of all labour laws, including the Employees'
7. Old-Age Benefits Act in respect of persons employed by the contractors. Copies of vouchers pertaining to payments made to the contractors by the petitioners have also been produced. The payments have generally been made on weekly bass indicating the quantum of work for which these payments have been made to the contractor.
8. The learned representative of petititoners has argued that neither the petitioners pay wages to the workers employed by the contractors for comple--tion of the contract work nor they have any administrative control over such workers. The contract workers, therefore, are not employees of the peti--tioners and accordingly petitioners are not liable to pay Employees' Old-Age Benefits Contribution in respect of them. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind in the appeals of Muhammad Umar and 25 others v. M. M. Ispahani Ltd. (1980 PLC 888). In the said case workman employed by a contractor required under contract to carry on certain- work has been distinguished from employment of workman through contractor of labour to do work of employer. In deciding the case the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal has discussed various rulings laying down the ingredients of a contract of employment namely, AIR 1957 SC 264; PLD 1979 Kar. 109 ; 1974 PLC Note 60 at p. 33 and 1961 PLC 432 etc. .In the case of Shahab Industries v. Shah Nimroz (1974 PLC Note 60 at p. 33 .) it was observed that a distinction has to be made between two situations, the one where the worker is employed through a contractor and the other where the contractor himself employed workers for carrying on contracts which he has taken. The Indian Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. V. M. Pate: (1961 PLC 432) has expressed this distinction as. Follows: "An independent contractor is charged with a work, and has to produce a particular result but the manner in which the result is to be achieved is left to him. A servant, on the other hand, ,may also be charged with the work and asked to produce a particular result, but is subject to the directions of the master as to the manner in which the result is to be achieved."
9. I further hold that the petitioners are not the employers in respect of persons employed by the contractors for carrying on the contract work and as such the petitioners are not liable to pay any contribution to the respondent Institution in respect of such persons.