JUDGMENT : A. Lekshmikutty, J.—Against the judgment in I.C. No. 36 of 1991 of the Employees' Insurance Court, Alappuzha, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party. The respondent filed the application challenging the coverage of the applicant's establishment under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme. The contention of the respondent was that the applicant's establishment was not covered in the Employees' State Insurance Scheme, since 10 tally clerks under the respondent have no employer-employee relationship. 2. The appellant had filed a written statement denying the allegation in the application. The contention of the appellant is that the respondent is the principal employer of the tally clerks under the respondent's establishment. The respondent is having ultimate supervision and control over the 10 tally clerks. On the side of the respondent, P.W.-1 was examined and exhibits P-1 to P-12 were marked. On the side of the appellant, D.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and exhibits D-1 to D-3 were marked. After considering the evidence, the learned Employees' Insurance Court allowed the application and exhibits P-4 and P-5 were set aside. Against the said judgment, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party. 3. The respondent is a society registered under the Travancore Cochin Charitable Literary and Scientific Societies Act. The society was formed with the object of providing business interest of customs house agents. Such customs house agents are not the members of the association. The shipment tally clerks in Cochin Port are employed by various customs house agents and they will have to work inside the wharf. They have to identify cargo stored in the cargo shed for shipment. The tally clerks were agitating through their trade union for security of employment and better service condition. At the instance of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Madras, a conciliation settlement was signed on September 18, 1995, between the Customs House Agents Association and the representative of the trade union of tally clerks. 32 tally clerks were allotted to different groups of the customs house agents on permanent basis. The respondent is not the employer of those tally clerks. The only intention of the respondent is to collect wages from the respective agents and to disburse the same to the tally clerks. 4. The appellant has no case that the tally clerks were doing work of the respondent and they are working in the premises of the association. The respondent is not the employer of those tally clerks. The only intention of the respondent is to collect wages from the respective agents and to disburse the same to the tally clerks. 4. The appellant has no case that the tally clerks were doing work of the respondent and they are working in the premises of the association. There is no supervision of the work done by the tally clerks by the respondent. But, without properly considering these facts, the appellant has been directed to cover the respondent establishment under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act provisionally from April 1, 1988. The case of the appellant is that the tally clerks are employed by the respondent and they are under their direct supervision. The wages were being paid by the respondent. Hence, the respondent is the employer of the tally clerks. The Inspector of the Corporation made an inspection and at that time three employees were working in the office of the respondent. At the time of examination DW-1 admitted that only three employees were working in the office of the respondent. If the tally clerks were the employees of the respondent, they are liable to pay contribution as per the Employees' State Insurance Act. Even as per the appellant, the tally clerks were working in the Cochin Port area. The fact that the services of the tally clerks were obtained by different customs house agents of the Cochin Port is not disputed. These tally clerks were not attached exclusively to any of the customs and clearing agents. Only some arrangements were made by the association as per the settlement made between the trade union and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central). Exhibit P-2 is the settlement entered into between them. It would show that 32 tally clerks were allotted to different groups of the customs house agents. In order to substantiate the same, the respondent relies on exhibit P-3. It would show the names of the employees working under each group of clearing agent. The wages were also collected from the agents of each group and it was given to tally clerks. P.W. -1 gave evidence that they were only collecting the wages from the agents as per the arrangement made in exhibit P-2 and disbursing the same to the tally clerks. The wages were also collected from the agents of each group and it was given to tally clerks. P.W. -1 gave evidence that they were only collecting the wages from the agents as per the arrangement made in exhibit P-2 and disbursing the same to the tally clerks. As stated earlier, the appellant has no case that any of the tally clerks are working in the premises of the respondent. The details of wages to be collected through the association will intimate the respective clearing agents. So, it is clear that the respondent is working only as an agent for the deployment of workers and wages to be paid to the tally clerks were being collected from the agents who utilised the service of tally clerks. So, none of the clearing agents could have liability to cover the employees since the total number of employees employed by each agent will not be sufficient for coverage independently. No service is rendered by the tally clerks to the association. So, it is to be found that the tally clerks are not the employees of the respondent. As stated by the lower Court, the employers who utilised the service of the tally clerks are the customs and clearing agents. So, the respondent is not liable to contribute the Employees' State Insurance contribution in respect of the tally clerks. On a perusal of the entire records, I find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the Court below. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.