( 1 ) THE Division Bench consisting of Venkataswami and Range Gowda, JJ. has referred the following question of law for the opinion of the Full Bench. "whether workers employed in a hospital attached to and maintained by a 'factory' as defined in section 2 (12) of the Employees' State Insurance act, 1948, exclusively for the benefit of its employees 'and their families, are 'employees' within the meaning of section 2 (9) of the said Act ?"this case arises out of proceedings initiated by the Associated Cement Companies ltd. Shahabad Cement Works, Shahabad (hereinafter referred to as the company) under S. 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Employees' Insurance Court, Gulbarga, in ESI. A. No. 1/72, praying that the Regional Director, Employee's State Insurance corporation (hereinafter referred to as the corporation) should be ordered not to demand the contribution from the Company under the Act in respect of the employees in the hospital maintained by it except one nurse. The undisputed facts are these : The Company is running a factory at Shahabad where cement is being manufactured. The Company has established a hospital exclusively for the benefit of its employees where the employees and the members of their families are given medical treatment free of charge. In that hospital fifteen persons are employed by the Company including a doctor and a nurse. The employees of the hospital are included in the muster roll of the factory and their salaries are paid by the factory. The Company has treated the expen. diture incurred in running the hospital, including the salaries paid to the employees working there, as expenditure incurred by it in connection with its business. The hospital also serves as an ambulance room which every factory is required to maintain under law. Rule 92 of the Rules framed under the Factories Act, reads as follows :-"92. Ambulance room: (1) The Ambulance Room or dispensary shall be in charge of a qualified Medical Practitioner assisted by at least one qualified nurse and such subordinate staff as the Chief Inspector may direct. "the Corporation issued a notice of demand to the Company calling upon it to pay the contribution payable under the Act in respect of all the employees working in the hospital. The Company questioned the validity of the said notice before the ESI. "the Corporation issued a notice of demand to the Company calling upon it to pay the contribution payable under the Act in respect of all the employees working in the hospital. The Company questioned the validity of the said notice before the ESI. Court under S 75 of the Act. In that case the company contended that the medical practitioner working there was outside the purview of the definition of the expression "employee", because the salary which was being paid to him was more than Rs. 500 per month. It contended that since it was required to maintain only one qualified nurse in the ambulance room, it was liable to pay contribution in respect of only one nurse working in the said hospital and it was not obliged to pay contribution is respect of other employees working in the hospital as they had not been engaged in connection with the work of the factory It also contended that the work in the hospital which was being run as a charitable institution should not be treated as "work of or incidental to or preliminary to or connected with the work of the factory". The Corporation resisted the claim of the Company. The Employee's Insurance C ourt upheld the case of the Company and declared that the company was not liable to pay contribution in respect of employees who were not required to be employed under Rule 92 of the Rules framed under the Factories act. Accordingly the application made by the Company under S. 75 was allowed. Aggrieved by the order of the Employee's Insurance Court, the Corporation preferred the above appeal. When the above appeal came up before a division Bench of this Court for hearing, having regard to certain decisions cited before it, it felt that the question of law referred to above should be preferred for the opinion of a Full Bench. Aggrieved by the order of the Employee's Insurance Court, the Corporation preferred the above appeal. When the above appeal came up before a division Bench of this Court for hearing, having regard to certain decisions cited before it, it felt that the question of law referred to above should be preferred for the opinion of a Full Bench. Accordingly the above question has come up for consideration before this Full Bench the principal contention urged on behalf of the Company before the Employee's insurance Court and the Division Bench has been that if certain employees are engaged by the employer not directly connected with the work of the factory or in compliance with any statutory provision, but in a hospital which is established as a charitable institution for the benefit of workmen, they cannot be considered as employees within the meaning of the expression "employee" defined in S. 2 (9) of the Act. The relevant part of S. 2 (9) reads:-"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) 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 ;"we are of the view that the question posed before us has been fully answered by the Supreme Court in its decision in Royal Talkies, Hyderabad v. E. S. I. C. , AIR 1978 SC 1478 . There, the facts were these : The appellants were owners of theatres in Hyderabad and Secunderabad, where films were exhibited. Within the premises of each of those theatres were a canteen and a cycle stand. The canteen and the cycle stand were leased out to contractors under instruments of lease. The contractors employed their own servants to run the canteen and the cycle stand. Within the premises of each of those theatres were a canteen and a cycle stand. The canteen and the cycle stand were leased out to contractors under instruments of lease. The contractors employed their own servants to run the canteen and the cycle stand. In regard to persons so employed by the contractors the owners of the theatres were treated as 'principal employers' and notices of demand were issued to them calling upon them to pay contribution under the Employees' State Insurance Act; thereupon the owners of theatres filed applications under section 75 of the Act before the Employees' Insurance Court for a declaration that the provisions of the act were not applicable to their theatres and that they were not liable to pay any contribution in respect of the persons employed in the canteens and cycle stands attached to the theatres. The Employees' Insurance Court found that the canteens were within the premises of the cinema theatres ; that a few of such canteens had access directly from the abutting roads, while the other canteens could be reached only through the opening from inside the cinema theatres ; that the persons running the canteens were themselves responsible for equipping the canteens with the necessary furniture and utensils ; that the managements of all those cinema theatres paid the electricity charges due in respect of the canteens that the persons working in the canteens were employed only by the contractors or tenants who ran the canteens and they alone were responsible for the salaries payable to the persons ; that the managements of the cinema theatres had absolutely no supervisory control over the persons employed in the canteens that those canteens had to be run only during the show hours ; that a few of the persons working in the canteen were allowed inside the auditorium during the interval for vending eatables and beverages; that the managements of the cinema theatres had reserved the right to enter the canteen premises at all reasonable times for purpose of inspection, and that the cycle stands were exclusively for the convenience of the persons visiting the theatre. On the above facts the Employees' insurance Court found that the owners of the theatres were principal employers with reference to the persons employed in the canteens and cycle stands and rejected the application filed by owners of theatres. On the above facts the Employees' insurance Court found that the owners of the theatres were principal employers with reference to the persons employed in the canteens and cycle stands and rejected the application filed by owners of theatres. The appeals filed by the owners of theatres before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh were dismissed In the appeals filed before the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court, the Supreme Court observed inter alia, as follows :- now here is a break-up of Sec. 2 (9) The clause contains two substantive parts. Unless the person employed qualifies under both, he is not an 'employee'. Firstly, he must be employed ' in or in connection with" the work of an establishment. The expression "in connection with the work of an establishment" ropes in a wide variety of workmen who may not be employed in the establishment but may be engaged only in connection with the work of the establishment. Some nexus must exist between the establishment and the work of the employees but it may be a loose connection. 'in connection with the work of an establishment' only postulates some connection between what the employee does and the work of the establishment. He may not do anything directly for the establishment, he may not do anything which is primary or necessary for the survival or smooth running of the establishment or integral to the adventure. It is enough if the employee does some work which is ancillary, incidental or has relevance to or link with the object of the establishment. Surely an amenity or facility for the customers who frequent the establishment has connection with the work of the establishment. The question is not whether without that amenity or facility the establishment cannot be carried on, but whether such amenity or facility, even peripheral may be, has not a link with the establishment. Illustrations may not be exhaustive but may be informative. Taking the present case, an establishment like a cinema theatre is not bound to run a canteen or keep a cycle stand (in Andhra Pradesh) but no one will deny that a canteen service, a toilet service, a car park or cycle stand, a booth for sale of catchy film literature on actors, song hits and the like, surely have connection with the cinema theatre and even further the venture. On the other hand a bookstall where scientific works or tools are sold or a stall where religious propa. ganda is done may not have anything to do with the cinema establishment and may therefore, be excluded on the score that the employees do not do any work in connection with the establishment that is, the theatre. In the case of a five-star hotel, for instance a barber shop or an arcade, massage parlour, foreign exchange counter or tourist assistant counter may be run by some one other than the owner of the establishment but the employees so engaged do work in connection with the establishment or the hotel even though there is no obligation for a hotel to maintain such an ancillary attraction. By contrast, not a lawyer's chamber or architect's consultancy. Nor, indeed is it a legal ingredient that such adjunct should be exclusively for the establishment, if it is mainly its ancillary. ( 2 ) THEREFORE, we move down to Sec 2 (9) (ii) Here again, the language used is extensive and diffusive imaginatively embracing all possible alternatives of employment by or through "an independent employer. In such leases, 'the principal employer' has no direct employment relationship since the 'immediate employer' of the employee concerned is some one else. Even so such an employee, if he works, (a) on the premises of the establishment, or (b) under the supervision of the principal employer or his agent "on work which is ordinarily part of the work of the establishment or which is preliminary to the work carried on in or incidental to the purpose of the establishment", qualifies under Sec. 2 (9) (ii ). The plurality of persons engaged in various activities who are brought into the definitional net is wide and considerable and all that is necessary is that the employee be on the premises or be under the supervision of the principal employer or his agent. Assuming that the last part of Sec. 2 (9) (ii) qualifies both these categories, all that is needed to satisfy that requirement is that the work done by the employee must be, (a) such as is ordinarily (not "necessarily non-statutorily) part of the work of the establishment, or (b) which is merely preliminary to the work carried on in the establishment, or (c) is just incidental to the purpose of the establishment. ( 3 ) NO one can seriously say that a canteen or cycle stand or cinema magazine booth is not even incidental to the purpose of the theatre. The cinema goers ordinarily find such work an advantage, a facility, an amenity and sometimes a necessity. All that the statute requires is that the work should not be irrelevant to the purpose of the establishment. It is sufficient if it is incidental to it. A thing is incidental to another if it merely appertains to something else as primary. Surely, such work should not be extraneous or contrary to the purpose of the establishment but need not be integral to it either. Much depends on time and place, habits and appetites, ordinary expectations and social circumstances. In our view, clearly the two operations in the present case, namely, keeping a cycle stand and running a canteen "are incidental or adjuncts to the primary purpose of the theatre. " ( 4 ) IN the instant case the hospital is being maintained exclusively for the benefit of the employees of the Company and their families. The ambulance room which is required to be maintained by the Company forms part of the hospital. The object of the hospital is to see that the health of workmen is kept up and thereby their efficiency is improved. The expenditure on the hospital is treated as part of the business expenditure of the factory and all the employees working there are shown in the muster roll of the Company. If the tests laid down by the Supreme court in Royal Talkies (1) case are applied to this case, it becomes clear that the workers employed in the hospital attached to and maintained by the Company exclusively for the benefit of its employees and their families are employed in connection with the work of the factory though the maintenance of the hospital is not for compliance with any statutory provision and are "employees"within the meaning of S. 2 (9) of the Act. The cases will now go bock to the Division Bench for disposal in accordance with law. --- *** --- .