Judgment Monoranjan Mallick, J. This is an appeal by the Employees State Insurance Corporation against the order passed by Shri D.K. Banerjee, Judge Employees Insurance Court, West Bengal allowing an application filed by the respondent under s. 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and declaring that the Head Office and Branch Offices concerned of the respondent are not covered by the ESI Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 2. The respondent has filed an application before the Employees Insurance Court praying for the above declaration on the ground that he has a factory owned by him in the name and style of Sadhana Ausadhalaya at 36, Sadhana Ausadhalaya Road, Calcutta-48 and the said factory is covered under the Employees State Insurance Act. The respondent has, besides the factory his Head Office in Calcutta and several Branch Offices at different parts of India. None of the staff employed at the Head Office and Branch Offices has to attend the factory and the names of no staff of the Head office and the names of no staff of the Head Office and Branch Offices appear in the Muster Rolls of the factory. None of them is subject to the standing orders of the factory nor any of the staff of the Head office nor of the Branch Offices is paid at the factory. The factory authorities have also no control over the staff of the Head Office or Branch Offices. The Head Office and the Branch Offices are establishments within the meaning of the Shops and Establishment Act and the staff of the Head Office and Branch Offices get the benefit under the Shops and Establishments Act. Notification under s. 1(5) of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 is necessary to bring the staff of Head Office and Branch Offices of Sadhana Ausadhalaya under the coverage of the said Act but no such Notification in respect of the staff of the Head Office and Branch Offices of the Sadhana Ausadhalaya was ever issued by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the said Corporation). But even though no such notification was issued by the said Corporation it has asked the respondent to comply with the various provisions under the said Act touching the question of coverage by its letter No. C/1 WS-III/41-3413 dated 30th March, 1970 but the question of coverage was disputed by him by the letter dated 8.4.70. The said Corporation was also asked in the above letter to clarify some anomalies but the said Corporation failed to comply with his request in the above and ultimately threatened him with prosecution under s. 85(a) and (g) of the said Act on the charge of failure on his part to comply with the demands of the said Corporation under the said Act relating to coverage and contributions. Thereafter finding no other, alternative to avoid threats of prosecution, he started partial compliance with the various provisions of the said Act. In spite of his compliance with the demand of the said Corporation under the said Act, partially, he reiterates that the Head Office and Branch Offices staff of the Sadhana Ausadhalaya are in no way connected with the work of the factory and that the staff of the Head Office and Branch Offices of Sadhana Ausadhalaya cannot be brought under the coverage of the said Act. The plaintiff/respondent has therefore sought before the Employees Insurance Court the necessary declaration as stated above and for further ancillary reliefs. 3. The Employees State Insurance Corporation has contested the case by filing a written statement. According to the Corporation the definition of the term employees in the Act covers the employees engaged for doing the work of the factory where such work is done in the factory premises or elsewhere and includes a person employed for wages for any work connected with the administration of factory or establishments or any part, department or branch thereof or in connection with the purchase of raw-materials or the distribution or sales of products of the factory or establishments. 4. It is therefore contended that the employees of the Head Office and the Branch Offices of the Sadhana Ausadhalaya are covered by the Act in view of the definition of the said ESI Act. 5. The learned Judge on considering the evidence on record and on considering the decision of the Supreme Court in Nagpur Electric Power Co. Ltd. & ors. 5. The learned Judge on considering the evidence on record and on considering the decision of the Supreme Court in Nagpur Electric Power Co. Ltd. & ors. v. E.S.I. Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 1964 and some unreported decisions of Calcutta High Court have negatived the contention of the Corporation that the employees of the Head Office and the Branch Offices are covered by the Act on the finding that they do not come within the definition of 'employees' and in order to cover them under the said Act a Notification under s. 1(5) of the EST Act may be necessary. He has also come to the finding that even if it be conceded that notification under s. 1(5) of the said Act is not necessary to cover the employees of the Head Office and the Branch Offices of the Sadhana Ausadhalaya in view of the amendment of s. 2(9) of the Act in 1966, the employees sought to be covered in this case cannot be so covered in view of the fact that the evidence on record does not come to satisfactorily prove that these employees are connected with the sale and/or purchase of raw-materials and their names are appearing in the Muster Roll and their wages are debited to the factory accounts. 6. In the result, the learned Judge has allowed the application of the plaintiff/respondent under s. 75 or the Act and granted the declaration that the Head Office and the Branch Offices concerned of the respondent are not covered by the Act. 7. Being aggrieved, the Corporation has preferred this appeal. It is contended that the learned Judge committed a great illegality in construing the provision of s. 2(9) of the Act as amended by the amending Act 1966 and has committed a great error by holding that the employees of the Head Office and Branch Offices of the Sadhana Ausadhalaya cannot be covered on the ground that there is no proof that these employees are connected with the sale, and/or purchase of raw-materials and their names have been appearing in the Muster Rolls and their wages are debited to the factory accounts. It is further contended that the evidence adduced by the witnesses of the respondent has clearly established that the employees of the Head Office are concerned with the administration of the factory and the branch offices with sale or the products of the factory. 8. The appeal has been contested by the plaintiff/respondent. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by both the panics, it is necessary to state what the definition of an employee is under the Act stood when this present suit had been filed. It states thus:- "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; 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 arc temporarily lent or let on hire to the principal employer by the person with whom 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 thereof 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 forces; or (b) any person or employed whose wages excluding remuneration for overrule work exceed one thousand rupees a month;" 9. The Special Bench presided over by Sankar Prosad Mitra, C.J. and Sabyasachi Mukherjee and Salil Kumar Datta, JJ., in The India Jute Company Ltd. v. The Regional Director West Bengal Region, Employees State Insurance Corporation reported in 1977 CHN 131 has interpreted the amended provision of 'employee' under s. 2(9) of the Act 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 he 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' within the Act. Section 38 of the Act does not appear to us to be an impediment. This section opens with the words subject to the provisions of the Act'. These words bring within their scope the amended definition of 'employee'. There is, therefore, no difficulty in covering employee; 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". 10. Similar view was expressed in Sen Raleigh Ltd. v. Employees' State Insurance Corpn. & Ors. reported in 1977(2) CHN 184. It was held in the said decision that the employees of the Head office of the Company even though in Calcutta and the factory was in Asansol, the Head Office employees of Sen Raleigh Ltd. was covered by amended definition of s. 2(9) of the Act. The Supreme Court in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Product Ltd. v. Employees Insurance Court has also held in AIR 1978 SC 356 that when the employees are covered by the amended definition of s. 2(9) it is not necessary that the employees of the head office or of the branch office, as the case may be, being other establishment, a notification under s. 1(5) of the said Act would be necessary. In the case of P.C. Chandra & Company v. ESI Corporation reported in 1980(1) CHN 208 the learned Single Judge following the above Supreme Court decision in AIR 1978 SC 356 held that if the employees of the head office or other branch offices come within the definition of s. 2(9) of the Act, there is no scope for urging the question of absence of Notification under s. 1(5) of the said Act. 11. In Employees State Insurance Corporation v. M/s. W.H. Herton & Co. Ltd. 1987(II) CHN 119 the Division Bench of this court relying on the above decisions of the Calcutta High Court and of the Supreme Court and on considering the evidence adduced before the ESI Court has come to the finding that the head office employees are covered by s. 2(9) of the Act when from the evidence it is clear that the head office also does the general administrative work and the supervision of the sales works of the factory through the head office and the employees of the head office do some work connected with the administration of the factory by maintaining the accounts and by sale of the products of the factory under the direction of the Sales Manager who is posted at the head office. 12. In this case also the plaintiff/respondent has examined three witnesses. The first witness is Sri Lokesh Chandra Dey who is an employee of Sadhana Ausadhalaya at its factory. He has stated in his evidence-in-chief that the factory products are sent to different branches and from branches sale of the products are effected, but he has stated that the head office employees are not paid from the factory accounts and the accounts of the factory are prepared in the factory. But in cross-examination he has admitted that their head office is situated at 26, Bidhan Sarani and he has to go to that office for discussion over the affairs of the factory and the Manager of the factory is also called by the Proprietor in connection with the affair of the factory. From his evidence it is clear that the branch offices sell the products of the factory and the head office also supervises the general administration of the factory. 13. Witness no. 2 for the Respondent, Sri Pratul Kr. From his evidence it is clear that the branch offices sell the products of the factory and the head office also supervises the general administration of the factory. 13. Witness no. 2 for the Respondent, Sri Pratul Kr. Chakraborty, being the Factory Manager has stated in his cross-examination that as per requisition of the branches they supply the medicines. So, from his evidence, it is also clear that the branch offices act as Sales Offices of the factory. He has stated in his cross-examination that the Ledger of the factory are sometime sent to the Chief Accountant of the Head Office for accounting purposes and he also keeps the Proprietor of firm informed of the action taken by him against any of the factory employees in all cases. So according to this evidence also the Proprietor who sits in the Head Office generally supervised the administration of the factory. 14. Sri Amal Chandra Ghosh is the third witness of the plaintiff. He is an employee attached to the head office of Sadhana Ausadhalaya. In his cross-in-chief he has stated that the separate register is maintained in the head office employees. But he has stated that the medicines are directly dispatched to the branches for sale from the factory. In his cross-examination he, however admits that the works Manager of the factory attend the head office on official duty and there is exchange of correspondence between the head office and the factory. So, his evidence also clearly shows that the administration of the factory is supervised by the head office. 15. In view of the above evidence, there is no escape from conclusion that the head office of Sadhana Ausadhalaya is in overall charge of the administration of the factory and the branch offices of Sadhana Ausadhalaya acted as a Sales Offices of the factory. In that view of the matter there was sufficient evidence before the learned Judge to come to a finding that the employees of the Head Office as well as branch office of the Sadhana Ausadhalaya come within the purview of the definition of "employee" under s. 2(9) of the Act. 16. The learned Judge was not at all correct in holding that the branch offices have no connection with the sale of the products. Even though the Head Office has no such connection with the branch offices. 16. The learned Judge was not at all correct in holding that the branch offices have no connection with the sale of the products. Even though the Head Office has no such connection with the branch offices. The Head Office found to be in charge of the general administration of the factory. The learned Judge was not at all correct in coming to the finding that the employees of the head office and the branch office cannot come within the purview of the definition of employee as they are not in the Muster Roll in the factory. It is not necessary that the head office employees or the branch office employees to come within the definition of employees of the Act to be paid out of the factory accounts. Therefore the learned Judge committed a great illegality in granting the respondent a declaration that the head office and the branch office employees of Sadhana Ausadhalaya are not covered by the Act. These employees whose monthly remuneration did not exceed Rs.1,000/- was covered by the Act and the plaintiff/respondent was not entitled to any relief' for declaration as sought for in suit under s. 75 of the Act. 17. In the result, the appeal be allowed. The order passed by the learned Judge be hereby se. aside and the plaintiff/respondent's suit under s. 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act be dismissed on contest, but without costs. There is no order as to costs. The preparation of formal decree be dispensed with. Siba Prasad Rajkhowa, J.: I agree. Appeal allowed.