JUDGMENT Sukumar Chakravarty, J. This appeal has arisen out of the order dated December 24. 1915 passed by Shri D.K. Banerjee, the learned Judge, Employees Insurance Court, West Bengal in Case no 135 of 1974. 2 M/s. W.H. Herton & Co. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the company filed the application under s.75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ESI Corporation) for a declaration that the staff of the company's Head office/Registered office at 8, Dalhousie Square East, Calcutta were not the 'employees' as defined In the Act and were not covered by the Act and that the company was not legally liable to make any contribution against the salary paid to the employees posted at the Head office/Registered office, together with a prayer for Injunction restraining the ESI Corporation from proceeding with the recovery of such contribution in respect of the employees posted lit the Head office/Registered office. 3. The case of the applicant company was as follows:- The Company had its Registered office at Dalhousie Square East, Calcutta and its factory at J.N. Mukherjee Road, Naskar Para, Howrah The entire manufacturing process of the factory of the applicant company was done at its factory. The work relating to the administration, procurement of raw materials and sale of finished products were also done by the staff in the factory None of the employees posted at the head office/registered office of the company was on the factory rolls and the salary to such employees was not paid from the factory account None of the employees of the Head office/Registered office was transferable to the factory. The representation made in this respect on behalf of the company to the Inspector of the ESI Corporation on his visit to the Head office/Registered office from time to time yielded no result and the ESI Corporation on a misconception of the meaning of the employee as defined in s.2(9) of the Act and ignoring the provisions of s.1(5) of the Act demanded of the company payment or contribution in respect of the employees posted at the Head office/Registered office under the Act The employees of the head office registered office could not be brought under the coverage of the Act without the notification issued under s.1(5) of the Act and as such the demand made by the ESI Corporation for payment of contributions in respect of those employees was illegal. The ESI Corporation without taking into consideration the above fact took a summary recourse to proceed under the Revenue Recovery Act by sending a number of requisitions to Collectorate, 24-Paraganas in respect of the demands for payment of the contributions and obtained the certificate against the company and its directors Such demands for contributions by the ESI Corporation and the summary procedure as adopted by the ESI Corporation were not according to law and accordingly the application under consideration was filed for the relief as already stated. 4. The ESI Corporation as opposite party opposed the application of the company by filling the written objection it was contended inter alia that the employees of the Head office Registered office sought to be covered by the Act came within the meaning of employee as defined in s.1(5) of the Act was necessary to bring them under the coverage of the Act. It was further contended that the ESI Corporation lightly and properly covered the employees concerned and issued the requisitions for proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act to the Collectorate or 24 Parganas in respect of the contributions relating to the employees posted fit the Head office Registered office of the company The application therefore was without any merit and deserves its rejection. 5. 5. The learned Judge on consideration of the materials is in the record and the relevant provisions of law found that the notification under s. 1(5) of the Act was necessary to bring the Head office Registered office under the coverage of the Act and that the employees posted at the Head office Registered office in respect of whom the contributions were claimed by the ESI Corporation were not the employees within the meaning of s.2(9) of the Act and accordingly allowed the application and declared that the employees of the Head office/Registered office of the company were not covered by the Act by the impugned order. 6. The ESI Corporation being aggrieved by such order, has preferred the appeal. 7. Mr. Mukherjee, appearing for the appellant-opposite party, ESI Corporation has submitted that the company did not furnish the particulars and did not show the records with regard to the employees posted at the Head office/Registered office with reference to the queries made by the Inspector of ESI Corporation and that whatever evidence his been given in this case has established that the employees posted at the Head office/Registered office are the employees within the meaning of s.2(9) of the Act and that accordingly they came under the coverage of the Act even without issue of the notification under s.1(5) of the Act bringing them under the coverage of the Act In support of his such submission. Mr. Mukherjee has relied on the following decisions namely: 1. 1977 CHN 131 (India jute Company Ltd v. Regional Director, Employee’ State insurance Corporation,& Ors.) 2. 1977 CRN 184. (Sen Raleigh Ltd. V. ESI Corpn.) 3. AIR 1978 SC 356 ; (Union Carbide India Ltd. v. ESI Corpn) 4. 1978 Lab IC 1245 ; (Royal Talkies, Hyderabad v. ESI Corpn,) 5. 1978 Lab IC 1439 (ESI Corporation v. Cochin Company Pvt. Ltd.) 6. 1980 (1) CRN 208 ; (P.C. Chanda & Co Pvt. Ltd v. ESI Corpn,) 8 None has appeared on behalf of the respondent company to contest this appeal. 9. By virtue of s.4 of the Act, the Act applies to all factories including factories belonging to the government other than the seasonal factories. 1980 (1) CRN 208 ; (P.C. Chanda & Co Pvt. Ltd v. ESI Corpn,) 8 None has appeared on behalf of the respondent company to contest this appeal. 9. By virtue of s.4 of the Act, the Act applies to all factories including factories belonging to the government other than the seasonal factories. By notification in the official gazette in terms of s 1(5) of the Act, the appropriate government may extend the provisions of the Act to any other establishment like the Head office/registered office of the company in the instant case if the appropriate government wants to do so. The point at issue to the present case is whether the employees or some of the employees of the head office/registered office of the company may come within the meaning of the 'employee' as defined in s.2(9) of the Act by their nature of job in connection with any work of the factory, even without bringing the establishment like the Head office/registered office of the company under the coverage of the Act by issue of that notification under s.1(5) of the Act. 10. 10. 'Employee' as defined in s 2(9) of the Act 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 ; or (ii) who is employed by or through an immediate 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 or (iii) whose services are temporarily lent or let on hire to the principal employer by the person with whome the person whose services are so lent or let on hire has entered into a contract of service; [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 therefore or with the purchase of raw materials for, or the distribution or sale of the products of, the factory or establishment, but does not Include - ] (a) any member of (the Indian) naval, military or air force; or (b) any person employed whose wages (excluding remuneration for overtime work) exceed (one thousand and six hundred) rupees a month; Provided that an employee whose wages (excluding remuneration for overtime work) exceed (one thousand and six hundred rupees) a month at any time after (and not before) the beginning of the contribution period, shall continue to be an employee until the end of that period ;)" 11. In the case reported in 1977 CHN 131, the Special Bench of the court presided over by Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J and Sabyasachl Mukherjee and Salil Kumar Datta, JJ. In the case reported in 1977 CHN 131, the Special Bench of the court presided over by Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J and Sabyasachl Mukherjee and Salil Kumar Datta, JJ. while discussing the amended provision of 'employee' under s.2(9) of the Act, has held as follows:- "From a review of the aforesaid decisions it is clear that the amended definition is an exhaustive one it is a beneficial piece of legislation and it has to be given a meaning that would give benefit to those for whom it is Intended After the amendment the administrative staff engaged in purchase of raw materials or the distribution or sale of the products of a factory whether the work is done In the factory or elsewhere would be 'employees' wit bin the Act. Section 38 of the Act docs not appears to us to be an impediment. This section opens with the words 'subject to the provisions of this Act'. These words bring within their scope the amended definition of 'employee'. There is, therefore, no difficulty in covering employees who are not actually working in the factory premises provided that they do any type of work specified in s.2(9) as it now stands" 12. In the case reported In 1977 CHN 184, based on the facts that the Head office of the petitioner company was in Calcutta but its factory was at Asansol, the same Special Bench held that after the definition of 'employee' was amended, the provisions relating to 'contributions' and 'benefits' became applicable to the employees of Sen Raleigh Ltd, working in its Head Office in Calcutta who were covered by the amended definition in s.2(9) of the Act and accordingly the demand for payment of employer's contribution was not unjustified. 13. The aforesaid principle of law was also enunciated by the Supreme Court In the case reported in. AIR 1978 SC 356 which followed also the decision reported in AIR 1967 SC 1364 (Nagpur Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd. and ors. v. The Regional Director, Employee/State Insurance Corporation) In the case reported in AIR 1978 SC 356 , the Supreme Court held as follows : "The employee may be working within the factory or outside the factory or may be employed for administrative purposes or for purchase of raw materials or for sale of the finished goods, all such employees are included within the definition of 'employee'." 14. The aforesaid principle of law was also followed In the Case reported in 1978 Lab IC 1245 and 1978 Lab IC 1439. 15. In the case reported in AIR 1978 SC 356 (supra) the Supreme Court has not accepted the contention that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the employees of other establishment except the factory establishment without a notification being Issued under s.1(5) of the Act, if the employees of other establishment come within the meaning of the 'employee' as d fined in s 2(9) of the Act in the case reported in 1980(1) CHN 208, M.N. Roy, J while Following the decision in AIR 1978 SC 356 (supra) his held that "there is no further scope for urging the question of absence of notification under s.1(5) of the said Act." 16. Keeping In view the principle of law as enunciated in the aforesaid oases, we shall have to see whether the materials in the record have established that any of the employees posted at the Head office Registered office of the company does any type of the work specified in s.2(9) of the Act P.W. 1, O P Kandoi is the Office Master of the office situated at the factory premise of the company. It is true that he has stated In his examination in chief that procurement of raw materials, sale of finished goods, purchase etc. are done In his office. He has further stated that they have a Sales Manager in their head office and that the sales work is done under the direction of the Sales Manager from the factory In his cross examination he has stated that the company has no other business except the business of manufacturing ropes and that the Head office deals with general administration including account of the said business and that there is no account department in the factory. P.W.2, Madhusudan Prasad, the Chief Accountant of the company is attached to Head office He has slated in his evidence that the profit and loss account and the balance sheet arc prepared in the head office taking into consideration of the head office account and the factory account his evidence further shows that there is a common bearer for all office staff of the head office including the Sales Manager. It therefore appears from the aforesaid evidence that some employees who maintain the accounts of the factory in the head office and the Sales Manager and his staff, he be a bearer in the head office do some work connected with the administration of the factory by maintaining the accounts and by sale of the product of the factory under the direction of the Sales Manager there is no evidence to show that the monthly remuneration of the Soles Manager exceeds Rs 1600/- to get the Sales Manager outside the employee as defined in s.2(9) of the Act. 17. The evidence of O.P.W.1, S.C. Das, the Inspector of E.S.I Corporation and his reports Ext B series show that he Inspected the bead office of the company in 1972 and 1973. It appears from the report Ext. B that purchase, sale and maintenance of accounts are carried on to the head office The evidence of O.P.W. 2, R.C. Chowdhury, another Inspector of E.S.I Corporation and his report Ext. C show that be inspected the head office in 1974. His evidence show that the nature as the job done by the employees in the head office was not noted in the report as the same was found not noted in the Register of the company and that on verbal requisition to the management to produce the record showing the allotment of duties to the employees in the head office, the Manager of the company failed to produce any such record. 18. From the above discussion we fined that the head office has not furnished all the particulars of the employees in the head office which were within their special knowledge. 19. So on consideration of all the records and the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, we are of the view that the applicant company cannot get the declaration and the injunction as prayed for and the learned Judge was not justified In allowing the application under s. 75 of the Act and declaring the non coverage of the employees of the head office as a whole by the Act. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed ex parte and the Impugned order is set aside and the application under s.75 of the Act is rejected we make no order as to costs. Gobinda Chandra Chatterjee, J. I agree Appeal allowed