JUDGMENT V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J. 1 These are two appeals against the decision of the Employees State Insurance Court, Alleppey. I.C. Nos. 10 and 11 of 1964 were referred to that court, the former at the instance of the Marikar Engineers Limited, for a declaration that it was not an employer liable to make its contribution under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948; and the latter at the instance of the Employees State Insurance Corporation itself, for a declaration that the Marikar Engineers was liable to pay the contribution claimed. The State Insurance Court in these cases found against the Corporation. The Corporation has accordingly come up to this court with these appeals. 2. There is sufficient evidence to justify the finding of the State Insurance Court, that the Marikar Engineers is concerned with the work of repairing automobiles, and that the work of building bodies to be assembled on trucks is done by an independent contractor, Shri Vaikundan Asari, by employing his own labourers and by paying those labourers himself. The factory of M/s Marikar Engineers Limited is housed in premises walled up on all sides. In one corner of the said premises, Shri Vaikundan Asari is carrying on business for purpose of building bodies of motor trucks. The Insurance Court, on the evidence, found that the premises of Vaikundan Asari cannot be said to be the same as, or part and parcel of, the premises of M/s Marikar Engineers Ltd. We see no scope to interfere with the finding. 3. It was argued that the labourers employed by Vaikundan Asari would be 'employees' within the meaning of section 2 (9) (ii) of the Employees State Insurance Act, and that Shri Asari himself would be an 'immediate employer' within the meaning of section 2 (13) of the Act. 3. It was argued that the labourers employed by Vaikundan Asari would be 'employees' within the meaning of section 2 (9) (ii) of the Employees State Insurance Act, and that Shri Asari himself would be an 'immediate employer' within the meaning of section 2 (13) of the Act. For convenience we may re-produce the relevant portions of the definitions: "2 (9) '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) * * * * * * * (ii) Who is employed by or through an employer on the premises of the factory or establishment or under the supervision 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. * * * * * * * 2 (13) "Immediate employer", in relation to employees employed by or through him, means a person who has undertaken the execution, on the premises of a factory or an establishment to which this Act applies or under the supervision of the principal employer or his agent, of the whole or any part of any work, which is ordinarily part of the work of the factory or establishment of the principal employer, or is preliminary to the work carried on in, or incidental to the purpose of, any such factory or establishment, and includes a person by whom the services of an employee who has entered into a contract of service with him are temporarily lent or let on hire to the principal employer". We do not think that Shri Asari, on the facts found, can answer the definition of an ''immediate employer" within the meaning of section 2 (13) of the Act. The work undertaken by him, namely, building bodies and assembling them on trucks cannot be regarded as ordinarily part of the work of M/s Marikar Engineers Ltd. nor even as preliminary to the work carried on in, or incidental to the work of, the Marikar Engineers Ltd. Nor was Shri Asari working in the premises of Marikar Engineers Ltd., or under their supervision and control. Even so, we are also of the opinion that the labourers employed by Vaikundan Asari cannot be regarded as "employees" within the meaning of section 2 (9) (ii) of the Act. Even assuming that these labourers are employed through an "immediate employer", namely Shri Vaikundan Asari, they are not employed on work ordinarily part of the work of the Marikar Engineers Limited, or work which is preliminary to, or incidental to the purpose of, M/s Marikar Engineers Ltd. We are therefore satisfied that the Insurance Court was right in holding that the workmen employed by Shri Vaikundan Asari cannot be regarded as employees of M/s Marikar Engineers Limited; nor that Shri Asari himself can be regarded as an immediate employer of M/s Marikar Engineers Ltd. 4 We dismiss these appeals with no order as to costs.