Judgment :- Rajamannar, C.J. The decision of this appeal turns on the application of the definition of "employee" in the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, to seven persons employed in the office of the managing agents of the Lotus Mills, Ltd., Coimbatore. Lotus Agency (Private), Ltd., are the managing agents. The learned District Judge of Coimbatore decided that they were not "employees." "Employee" is defined in S.2(9) of the aforesaid Act thus "'employee, ' means any person employed for wages in or in connexion with the work of a factory or establishment to which this Act applies and - (i) who is directly employed by the principal employer on any work of, or incidental or preliminary to, or connected with the work of, the factory or establishment, whether such work is done by the employee in the factory or establishment or elsewhere; ............" * For the purpose of this appeal Sub-cls. (ii) and (iii) are not material. "Factory" is thus defined : "'Factory, ' means any premises including the precincts thereof whereon twenty or more persons are working or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power or is ordinarily so carried on but does not include a mine subject to the operation of the Indian Mines Act, 1923 (IV of 1923), or a railway running shed; " * As it was not clear to us what was the exact work which the seven persons from whom contribution was demanded under the provisions of the said Act were doing, we asked both the learned Government Pleader and the counsel appearing for the employees to the file before us statements setting out the particulars of the work which had been allotted to each of them. We have now been given the requisite information which we set out below :(1) Ganapathia Pillai (who has since died on 9 January 1958), general supervision of the work in the managing agents' office. (2) A. N. Venkatachalam Chettiar, Assistant Secretary in charge of the managing agents' office, in status next to the Secretary, entrusted with the overall responsibility for running the managing agents' office. (3) C. V. Vaidyalingam, supervisory official in charge of the managing agents' office. (2) A. N. Venkatachalam Chettiar, Assistant Secretary in charge of the managing agents' office, in status next to the Secretary, entrusted with the overall responsibility for running the managing agents' office. (3) C. V. Vaidyalingam, supervisory official in charge of the managing agents' office. After Ganapathia Pilla's death he has been doing the work of general supervision of the managing agents' office also. (4) T. N. Kanthanathan, cashier for disbursement of pay to all officers and staff and wages to workers of the mill. (5) R. Rangaswami Rao, typist, attending to all typists' work in the managing agents' office. (6) V. Radhakrishnan, clerk, attending general clerical work in the managing agents' office. (7) A. R. Ramaswami Chettiar, ledger clerk in charge of the maintenance of the ledgers and the cash book of the managing agents' office. The learned Government Pleader contended that the definition of "employee" in S.2(9) of the Act should be broadly construed and it should be held that persons employed in the office of a managing agent for an industrial or manufacturing establishment must be deemed to be employed on any work incidental or preliminary to, or connected with the work of the factory or establishment. Now, "the work, " which is the prime factor, is the work of the factory. "Factory" means the premises wherein a manufacturing process is being carried on. It follows that only persons who are in some manner or another connected with the said work, viz., manufacturing process, that can be said to be "employees" within the meaning of the definition. There are, no doubt, the words "incidental or preliminary to, " but both these have to be understood in conjunction with the words "with the work of the factory." So, the work done by the person in question should be work incidental or preliminary to the work of the factory as such. No decided case of this Court was cited to us which has a direct bearing on the point. A ruling of a Division Bench of this Court in Employees' States Insurance Corporation v. S. M. Sriramulu Naidu was referred to us. It was there held that if within the same premises or compound a number of departments are situate and the departments are engaged in the work in connexion with or incidental to a manufacturing process of the factory, they would, prima facie, all form part of the factory. It was there held that if within the same premises or compound a number of departments are situate and the departments are engaged in the work in connexion with or incidental to a manufacturing process of the factory, they would, prima facie, all form part of the factory. The main question which was raised before the learned Judges in that case was whether a cinema studio could be described as a factory. There were several departments engaged in different kinds of work in the studio, namely,(i) electrical, (ii) camera, (iii) sound, (iv) setting, (v) moulding, and (vi) carpentry, etc. There was a controversy whether any of these departments would come within the term "factory" under the Act. The learned Judges held that it would. Therefore, the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act would apply to it. In that case there was no question as to whether a person was or was not an employee. The contribution was demanded from the proprietor of the studio as an "employer." The defence of the employer was that the studio was not a factory and therefore, he was not liable. That plea was not upheld. In the course of the judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Ramachandra Ayyar, J., there are observations to the effect that the object of the Employees' State Insurance Act is more comprehensive and its scope designedly wider than those of the Factories Act. The learned Judge said at p. 704 "The Employees' States Insurance Act is the outcome of a policy to provide a remedy for the widespread evils arising form the consequences of national poverty. It is a piece of social security legislation, conceived as a means of extinction of the evils of the society named by Lord Beveridge (in his report which inspired this type of legislation in all countries), namely, want, disease, dirt, ignorance and indigence." * While we recognize that there is a difference between the definition of "workers" in the Factories Act and the definition of "employee" in the Employees' State Insurance Act, what we have to decided in each case is whether a particular person is one who will fall within the definition in the Employees' State Insurance Act. Of the seven persons from whom contribution is demanded, in our opinion, only one of them, namely, Sri T. M. Kanthanathan, can be brought under the definition, interpreting its language as widely as we can. Sri Kanthanathan disburses not only the pay of the officers and staff, but also the wages to the workers of the mill. It may be said that the payment of wages to the workers employed in the factory is in a sense incidental to, or connected with the work of the factory. We hold that Sri T. N. Kanthanathan will be liable for insurance contribution. We had at one time a doubt about Sri A. R. Ramaswami Chettiar, because, it was alleged that he keeps the ledger not only for the managing agents' office but also for the factory accounts. An affidavit has since been filed by him that he does not attend to the accounts of the factory as such. His work in confined to the accounts of the managing agents' office. Of the other persons sought made liable, it cannot be said to be in any sense that they are employed on any work of, or incidental or preliminary to, or connected with the work of the factory. They are all persons employed in the managing agents' office. A private copy of a judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (F.A. No. 610 of 1955 = 1957 (1) LLJ 267) was furnished to us by the learned Government Pleader. The judgment of the Bench was delivered by Gajendragadkar, J. The question raised in that case was whether a person employed in the administrative office of the J. K. Chemicals, Ltd., was an employee within the meaning of the Act. The learned Judge held he was not and observed (at p. 269) : "Nevertheless, before the respondent can be said to be an employee within the meaning of S. 2(9)(i), it must be shown that he has been employed on any work of or incidental or preliminary to, or connected with the work of the factory. It is necessary to emphasize that on the facts admitted in this case it is not shown that the work of the factory was to sell the products of the factory. The work of the factory in the present case began with the collection of raw materials and ended with the production of finished articles. It is necessary to emphasize that on the facts admitted in this case it is not shown that the work of the factory was to sell the products of the factory. The work of the factory in the present case began with the collection of raw materials and ended with the production of finished articles. If that be so, it would be difficult to accede to the argument that the work of selling the products of the factory was connected with the work of the factory. The work of selling cannot be said to be incidental or preliminary to the work of the factory. It is obviously not preliminary and it cannot be incidental in that sense. It is true that the expression 'connexion with' may be large in its denotation than 'indicidental' or 'preliminary.' But this expression also must be construed in the light of the facts as to which there is no dispute in the present case." * Applying these observations to the present case, it is obvious that the persons from whom contribution was demanded, except Sri T. N. Kanthanathan, are not employees. In Para. 2 of the affidavit filed by Sri C. V. Vaidyalingam on behalf of the respondent it is definitely stated that - "the managing agents' office is concerned purely with the administrative side of the mills and sale of finished products and are not in any way connected with the manufacturing process or with the work of the factory." * This is not denied. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part regarding the respondent 4, namely, Sri T. N. Kanthanathan, but is dismissed otherwise. There will be no order as to costs.