Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation represented by its Regional Director at Trichur under S.82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the Act, against the order passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Kozhikode in I.C No. 20 of 1969 holding that the employees working is the Head Office of the respondent-company are not liable to be covered under the Act and that hence no contribution is payable the by respondent in respect of those employees. 2. The respondent-Cochin Company Private Ltd. is engaged in the business of processing and freezing seafoods for sale, mainly by export. It has its registered office at Ernakulam and a factory at Mattancherry. The said factory is registered under the Factories Act. The question raised in this appeal relates to the liability of the respondent to have the employees working in the Head Office covered under the Act. The Employees' Insurance Court took the view that since the Head Office is located away from the premises of the factory and it does not function either as part of the factory or exclusively for work connected with the factory, the liability for payment of contribution will arise only if the Head Office is an 'establishment' notified in the manner contemplated under S.1(5) of the Act which admittedly it was not. The flaw in this reasoning is that the Employees' Insurance Court has omitted to take due note of the fact that in the definition of the expression 'employee' occurring in S 2(9) of the Act the Parliament has added by the amending Act No. 44 of 1966 which came into force with effect from 28-1-1968 the following words of Explanation, namely: "and includes any person employed for wages on any work connected with the administration of the factory or establishment or any part, department or branch thereof or with the purchase of raw materials for, or the distribution or sale of the products of, the factory or establishment" The scheme for contribution involved in this case is in respect of the periods subsequent to 28-1-1968 (the date of coming into force of the aforesaid amendment) and hence it is governed by the provisions of the Act as they stand after the amendment. The persons employed in the Head Office of the respondent-company are engaged in work connected with the administration of the factory and also with the purchase of raw materials and the distribution and sale of the products of the factory. Such employees therefore clearly fall within the inclusive part of the definition aforementioned and are liable to be covered under the Act. That this is the correct position is now clearly established by the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. v. The Employees Insurance Court and Anr, Civil Appeal No. 652 of 1976. (AIR. 1978 SC. 356) 3. It follows from the Foregoing discussion that the judgment of the Employees' Insurance Court, Calicut in so far as it declares that no contribution is payable by the respondent-company in respect of the employees working in the Head Office of the company has to be set aside. We do so and allow the appeal to that extent. The parties will bear their respective costs. Allowed.