JUDGMENT 1. - This order will dispose of the above numbered writ petitions. For the disposal of the writ petitions, we will refer to the facts of D.B. (Civil Writ Petitions No. 617/1982, M/s Mridang Cinema and another v. Union of India and others. M/s Shakti Enterprises (Petitioner No. 2) is the owner of M/s Mridang Cinema (Petitioner No. 1) situated at Srinagar Read. Ajmer, Rajasthan. It is not disputed that a space being available for running canteen (restaurant) and cycle stand, the petitioners gave a licence to one Mr. M.K. Bhargava, for running the canteen and cycle stand. The petitioners are contributing their own contribution as well as the employees contribution under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (for short the Act), but so far as the employees of the canteen and Cycle Stand are concerned, no contributions were being paid by the petitioners. A notice under Section 7A of the Act was issued by the non-petitioner no. 2 to the petitioner no. 1 to determine the issue regarding the dues payable by the petitioners in respect of the employees of the canteen (restaurant) and cycle stand Reply to the aforesaid show cause notice was filed by the petitioners wherein a plea was set up that the cycle stand and restaurant were separate establishments and the petitioners cannot be held liable to pay the contribution in respect of the employees of the cycle stand and the restaurant. A representation dated Nov. 3, 1980, was also filed through the counsel by the petitioners but according to the petitioners, objections submitted by them were ignored and non-petitioner no. 2 came to the conclusion that the cycle stand and the restaurant are not the separate establishments and the petitioners are liable to pay the Provident Fund dues in respect of the employees of the cycle stand and the restaurant. The petitioners challenge Annexure to dated Dec. 17, 1981 of non-petitioner no. 2 made under Section 7-A of the Act inter alia on the grounds that the employees of the licensee/contributor of the restaurant and the cycle stand were not their employees and they are not liable to pay any contribution under the Act for those employees Notice of the writ petition was given to the non-petitioners and reply has been filed. 2 made under Section 7-A of the Act inter alia on the grounds that the employees of the licensee/contributor of the restaurant and the cycle stand were not their employees and they are not liable to pay any contribution under the Act for those employees Notice of the writ petition was given to the non-petitioners and reply has been filed. In the said reply a case has been set up that the provisions of Act are applicable to the employees of the restaurant as well as the cycle stand because they have been employed for wages by a contractor in or in connection with the work of establishment. The question which, therefore, arises for determination is as to whether and under the provisions of the Act, the principal employer is liable to pay the contribution in respect of the employees of the restaurant and the cycle stand even if they have been given on licence/contract ? 2. It has been said in the earlier part of this order that it is not disputed that so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned it is governed by the provisions of the Act and is paying contributions in respect of the employees employed by it for wages. The case of the petitioners is that because the cycle stared and the restaurant have been given to a licensee, who is an independent contractor and has control over its employees and because the wages to them are not being paid by the petitioners, they do not come under the sweep of definition of employee' given under section 2(f) of the Act. Section 2(f) of the Act may now be read and is as under : (f)"employee" means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work. manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of STET establishment' and who gets his wages directly or indirectly from the employer, and includes any person employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with the work of the 'establishment.' 3. We may state that it can hardly be disputed that the cycle stand and the restaurant (canteen) are also in connection with the work of the 'establishments' and are amenities provided to the persons who visit the Cinema for seeing films. They have nexus to the main object of the Cinema. We may state that it can hardly be disputed that the cycle stand and the restaurant (canteen) are also in connection with the work of the 'establishments' and are amenities provided to the persons who visit the Cinema for seeing films. They have nexus to the main object of the Cinema. The definition of 'employee' in Section 2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act (1948), (for short the E. S. I. Act) came up for consideration before their lordship of Supreme Court in the case of Royal Taking Hyderabad and others v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, (A.I.R. 1978 S. C. 1478) . Their lordships fist read the definition of 'employee' as given in section 2 (9) of the E.S.I. Act in para 12 and after extracting the same, the Court in para "13 said the reach and range of the definition is apparently wide and deliberately transcends pure contractual relationships. We are in the field of labour jurisprudence, welfare legislation and statutory construction which must have due regard to Part IV of the Constitution so far as a teleological approach and social perspective must play upon the interpretative process. The Court said that clause (9) of Section 2 of the E.S.I. Act contain" two substantive parts and 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. The Court further said that 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 in the establishment he may not even 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. After having said so. the Court said that surely, an amenity or facility for the customers who frequent the establishment has connection with the work of the establishment. 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. After having said so. the Court said that surely, an amenity or facility for the customers who frequent the establishment has connection with the work of the establishment. The employees of the restaurant as well as the cycle stand of the contractor were held to be employees within the meaning of section 2 (9) of the E S.I. Act and the Act was held applicable. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the ratio of the aforesaid case of Royal Talkies, Hyderabad will, not apply, to the case in hand because the definition of -employee' as given in Section 2 (f) of the E.S.I. Act as given in Section 2 (f) of the Act, is not the same and if the definition of Section 2 (f) of the Act is read, the employees of contractor so far as the canteen and cycle stand are concerned, will not come within the definition of 'employee' given therein. We may state that the definition of employee' as given in Section 2 (f) of the Act came up for consideration in (1) M/s P.M. Patel & Sons v. Union of India ( AIR 1987 SC 447 ) . The Court said that the terms of the definition of "employee" are wide. In Para 13, the Court said that "employee" by the terms of its definition is wide enough to include the dwelling house of a home-worker. We have already extracted the of "Employee" as given in Section 2 cf of the Act and definition of definition "employee" is an extensive definition. It can hardly be disputed that so far as the canteen and cycle stand are concerned, they are in connection with the work of cinema and cannot exist independently. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners has referred to two cases one of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and other of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. In C.W.P. No. 2134/1981, decided on May 26,1981 by P&H High Court, the Court was dealing with a case of a firm which owns Kiran Cinema at Chandigarh. In that case also a canteen and cycle/scooter stand were there in the cinema which were allegedly given on lease from time to time to contractors. In C.W.P. No. 2134/1981, decided on May 26,1981 by P&H High Court, the Court was dealing with a case of a firm which owns Kiran Cinema at Chandigarh. In that case also a canteen and cycle/scooter stand were there in the cinema which were allegedly given on lease from time to time to contractors. The question arose as to whether the employees engaged in the cycle/scooter stand and the canteen did not fall within the definition of `employee' given under Section 2 (f) of the Act. The Court said for a moment keeping out of focus altogether the aforesaid decision, we are of the opinion that the definition of the "employee" given under Section 2 (f) of the Act is comprehensive enough and for the purpose of this Act, the employees employed by the contractors who had taken the canteen and cycle/scooter stands on lease from the petitioner shall be considered the employees of the cinema establishment of the petitioner. It is the statutory obligation of the cinema management to provide for a cycle/scooter stand and a canteen. These two are integral part of the cinema establishment whether these ancillary facilities are managed by the petitioner, owner of the cinema, directly or through contractors. The employees working in the cycle stand and the canteen shall be part of the staff of the cinema establishment." An identical question arose in Indore in M.P. No 67/1979. M/s Pratap Talkies, Bilaspur v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Indore, decided on December 4, 1980 (by M.P. High Court). The Court made a comparative study of the definition of employee' as given in Section 2 (f) of the Act as well as under Section 2 (9) of the E.S.I. Act and said that there is no material difference in the definition of the term 'employee' under the E.S.I. Act. It was also said that in view of the observations of the Supreme Court, it must be held that the employees working in the canteen in the petitioner's theatre are working in connection with the work of the petitioner's establishment. The fact that the employees working in the canteen were working at the material time under a canteen contractor was admitted by the petitioner in the information (Annexure Q) supplied by the petitioner to the respondent. 5. The fact that the employees working in the canteen were working at the material time under a canteen contractor was admitted by the petitioner in the information (Annexure Q) supplied by the petitioner to the respondent. 5. From the perusal of the above authorities, it will be clear that the employees of the independent contractor of cycle stand as well as canteen (restaurant) are within the sweep of the definition of employee' as given in section 2 (f) of the Act and, therefore. the provisions of Act will also be applicable so far as to be employees are concerned. 6. We find no merit in the above writ petitions, which are dismissed with costs and assess the cost in each of the writ petition as Rs. 500/-.Petitions dismissed. *******