Judgment RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. 1. This order shall dispose of two F. A. Os bearing Nos.433 and 442/1988 filed against the order dated January 28, 1988 passed by the employees Insurance Court, Gurgaon. Since identical question of law and facts are involved therein, therefore, both the appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, facts are taken from F. A. O. No.433/1988 titled Employees State Insurance Corporation V/s. Haryana Biological (P) Ltd. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent filed a petition under Sec.75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, the Act), challenging the demand raised by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (for short, the corporation) for the period from 4/1983 to 11/1983 and also prayed for restraining the appellant/corporation from recovering Rs.5636/- being contribution for the said period. In the petition, it was alleged by the respondent that the respondent is carrying the manufacturing process of pharmaceuticals. Vide letter dated January 25, 1979, they were informed by the appellant that their factory has come within the provisions of the Act w. e. f. April 6, 1978 and is being treated factory on the report of Insurance Inspector. It was maintained by the respondent that their factory is not covered under the Act as they had never engaged 10 or more persons on wages on any single day during the preceding 12 months which is clear from the report of the Inspector of Corporation, who had conducted inspection of the record of the respondent for the period 4/1980 to 1/1982. During the course of inspection, 7 persons were round working as employees whereas three were the Directors of the company. Since the Directors were counted as employees of the factory, therefore, the factory has been declared to have been covered under the provisions of the Act. 3. The petition was contested by the corporation in which it was claimed that at the time of inspection, 10 persons were found working. Moreover, the Directors receiving remuneration were also employees under Sec.2 (9) read with Sec.2 (12) of the Act. 4. Learned Court below vide its order dated January 28, 1988 held that the Directors are not covered by the definition of Sec.2 (9)of the Act, therefore, provisions of the Act are not applicable to the case of the respondent. 5. Mr. Moreover, the Directors receiving remuneration were also employees under Sec.2 (9) read with Sec.2 (12) of the Act. 4. Learned Court below vide its order dated January 28, 1988 held that the Directors are not covered by the definition of Sec.2 (9)of the Act, therefore, provisions of the Act are not applicable to the case of the respondent. 5. Mr. Vikas Suri, learned counsel for the appellant/corporation has vehemently contended that the matter has now been settled; by the Apex Court in the case of Employees state Insurance Corporation V/s. Apex engineering Pvt. Ltd. (1998) 1 SCC 86 : (1998)2 MLJ 33 : 1998-1-LLJ-274. It is submitted that in the aforesaid case, the Apex Court concluded, that even the Managing Director of a Company is an employee of the company within the definition of Sec.2 (9) of the Act. 6. In the case of Employees State insurance Corporation V/s. Apex Engineering pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Company was engaged in the manufacturing of motor seats. On september 9, 1969, the Board of Directors of the Company resolved to elect one of the directors Shri V. N. Dhanwate as Managing; director of the company and also conferred on him the authority to borrow, invest and lend the funds with certain limitation specified in the resolution. The Board of Directors of the corporation vide its resolution dated May 23, 1974, informed the company that Sh. Dhanwate being the Managing Director , who was also paid a regular remuneration was to be included along with the other 19 employees engaged for wages by the company for the purpose of declaring it as a factory under Sec.2 sub-section (12) of the Act, and vide its order dated July 1, 1974, it was ordered by the Corporation that the Company is covered as a factory under Sec.2 sub-section (12) of the Act. 7. Against the said decision of the corporation, the Company filed an application under Sec.75 read with Sec.76 of the Act, before the Employees State Insurance Court, which was allowed on September 5, 1975 holding that the company is not covered by Sec.2 sub-section (12) of the Act as it had only 19 employees and Sh. 7. Against the said decision of the corporation, the Company filed an application under Sec.75 read with Sec.76 of the Act, before the Employees State Insurance Court, which was allowed on September 5, 1975 holding that the company is not covered by Sec.2 sub-section (12) of the Act as it had only 19 employees and Sh. Dhanwate cannot be treated to be an employee within the meaning of Sec.2 sub-section (9) of the Act and hence the company cannot be said to have employed 20 employees so as to be considered as a factory under Sec.2 sub-section (12) of the Act. 8. In the said case, the Apex Court after taking into account the definition of employee as provided under Sec.2 sub-section (9) of the Act and other judicial precedents, came to a conclusion that the Managing Director may have dual capacity because in the Act, there is nothing to indicate that a managing director being the principal employer cannot be an employee. Thus, it was held that if the Managing Director is receiving remuneration for his work from the company, then he can be treated to be an employee within the meaning of sec. 2 sub Section (9) and shall also be counted amongst other employees in order to complete the numbers for the Act to prevail upon the factory 9. In the present case as well, it was found by the Corporations Inspector and it is admitted fact that three Directors were taking remuneration from the respondent, therefore, in view of the decision of the Apex Court as noticed above, I hold that those three Directors were also the employees of the Company and are to be counted with other 7 employees. Thus, the respondent comes within the purview of the Act. 10. In view of the above discussion, the present appeals filed by the Corporation are allowed. The impugned order passed by the employees State Insurance Corporation, gurgaon, is set aside and the petition filed under Sec.75 read with Sec.76 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, is dismissed without any order as to costs.