JUDGMENT Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—By the impugned order, the Industrial Tribunal and ESI Court, Bangalore has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 75 of the ESI Act. The records reveal that the appellant is a federal society and carries on the business of purchasing and pasteurizing the milk. The milk procured by the members of the appellant-society is transported in lorries/vans to the appellant's dairy. For that purpose, contract is awarded on the basis of rate per kilometer to the lowest bidder. The contractor collects the milk from the various societies in cans on specified routes and transports it to the appellant's dairy. The empty cans are retransported and returned to the respective members of the societies. When such being the position, a show cause notice was issued by the Assistant Regional Director, ESI Corporation, to the appellant calling upon them to furnish explanation and show cause as to why action should not be taken against them for non-payment of ESI contribution in respect of employees engaged by the contractors for the transportation of milk. The appellant-society denied its liability on the ground that employees appointed by the contractor were neither directly nor indirectly employees of the appellant. However, it was held by the Regional Director, ESI Corporation, Bangalore, that the appellant is liable to pay the contribution in respect of the employees engaged in the lorries by the contractors for transportation of the milk. Being aggrieved by such order passed by the Regional Director of ESI Corporation under Section 44A of ESI Act, the appellant filed an application under Section 75 of the ESI Act. The said application also came to be dismissed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal and ESI Court in ESI Application No. 69/2000. The same is under challenge in this appeal. 2. The substantial question of law that arises for our consideration in this appeal is:- Whether the employee employed by the Contractors for transportation of milk and milk products, doing the work of the appellant-society fall within the meaning of an 'employee' as defined under Section 2(9) of the ESI Act? 3. The question involved in this appeal is fully covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The Managing Director, Hassan Co-operative Milk Producer's Society Union Limited Vs. 3. The question involved in this appeal is fully covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The Managing Director, Hassan Co-operative Milk Producer's Society Union Limited Vs. The Assistant Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corporation, JT (2010) 4 SC 240 , wherein it is held that even if it is assumed that workers engaged by the contractor (immediate employer) for transportation of milk have been employed in connection with the work of the principal employer and these employees, thus, qualify under first substantive part of Section 2(9) of the ESI Act, but merely being employed in connection with the work of an establishment in itself, does not entitle a person to be an 'employee'. He must not only be employed in connection with the work of the establishment, but also be shown to be employed in one or other of the three categories mentioned in Section 2(9) of the ESI Act. The Apex Court ultimately held that the workers employed in connection with the work of the society by the contractors are not the employees of the society, inasmuch as they are neither directly employed by the society nor they work under supervision, of society. Mere presence of the contractor in the establishment of the appellant cannot be treated as an employment of such persons on the premises of the factory or establishment. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Since the Apex Court concluded that such employees are not covered by the definition of an Employee' as defined under Section 2(9) of the ESI Act, following the said judgment, this appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the following order is made:- Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.11.2001 passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal and the ESI Court, in ESI. Application No. 69/2000 stands aside and consequently, the order passed by the Regional Director, dated 21.7.2000 passed under Section 45A of the ESI Act also stands set aside. The amount deposited by the appellant to the tune of Rs. 7,22,101/- shall be refunded to the appellant.