JUDGMENT : T.V. THAMILSELVI, J. Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 82 of Employee’s State Insurance Act, to set aside the order passed by the Employees Insurance Court/Principal Labour Court, Chennai in E.I.O.P. No. 197 of 2005 dated 24.08.2012. 1. The appellant herein is the respondent in E.I.O.P. No. 197 of 2005, before the Employees Insurance Court/Principal Labour Court, Chennai, which was filed by the respondent herein/petitioner under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act to set aside the impugned order dated 22.07.2005. 2. After full trial, the Employees Insurance Court/Principal Labour Court, Chennai, set aside the impugned order by allowing the E.I.O.P. No. 197 of 2005, dated 24.08.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/respondent preferred this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contested the appeal on the following grounds: (i) The learned Judge erred in holding that the said Act would not apply to the employees working under the contractor doing job work without considering the Section (2)13 of E.S.I. Act, which includes the contractor who is doing job work of the principal employer. (ii) The trial Court also failed to appreciate that subsequent amendments which includes all the workers or employees of an establishment to be benefited under the Act. (iii) The trial Court failed to consider that the contractor is doing the job work of the principal employer. But it is a part of the work of the principal employer’s factory, which is incidental to the purpose of the factory establishment. Totally, the appellant contended that the contractor is doing job work on behalf of the principal employer within the premises of the principal employer’s factory. So, the principal employer is bound to pay the contribution as required under the said Act. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner contended that he is doing the business of manufacturing house hold utensils including gas stove, besides they give job work such as Idli plates making, pressing, cutting, polishing, minikadai pressing and polishing to outside independent parties who execute the work in their premises with their men, using their equipments without the supervision of the respondent/ petitioner or its agents. Thereby, he totally denied that the job work was done by outsiders with his supervision. 5. Thereby, he totally denied that the job work was done by outsiders with his supervision. 5. After full enquiry, the Principal Labour Court concluded that the respondent/petitioner has given job work to two industries and they have down the works outside the respondent’s premises with their equipments, thereby the Principal Labour Court concluded that, the contribution levied by the appellant Corporation under Section 45-A of the E.S.I. Act, is unsustainable. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the E.S.I. Corporation, Chennai. 6. On a perusal of records, it is seen that on the side of the respondent /petitioner PW-1 was examined and on the side of the appellant/respondent RW-1 and RW-2 were examined and exhibits Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4 were marked before the trial Court. 7. It is admitted fact that the respondent/petitioner is doing manufacturing of utensils and house hold articles under the name and style of M/s. Premier Home Appliances. As per the contention of the respondent/petitioner, he gave job to two outsider companies and also not supervised by him. To that effect the respondent/petitioner was examined as PW-1. The two outsider industries names are M/s. S.P. Metal Processors (Industries) and Sama Industries. As per the contention of the appellant corporation, they were two industries, which are under the supervision of the respondent/petitioner, and hence they are liable to pay the contribution. But on perusal of reply given by the respondent/petitioner was marked as Ex.P.2 the petitioner clearly stated that the above job works were given to two independent industries with bill numbers and also clearly contended that they are the outside parties having their own premises and have separate Government licence. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant corporation submitted that those two alleged outside industries are also doing job work with the supervision of the respondent, for which he relied upon the evidence of RW-1 and RW-2. As per the evidence of RW-1, during the inspection, he verified all the registers maintained by the respondent’s industries. He admits as follows: “TAMIL” 9. Evidence of RW-2 as follows: “TAMIL” 10. So, the evidence of RW-1 and RW-2 clearly proves that the alleged two outsider job works were not supervised by the respondent herein. Hence as discussed by the Principal Labour Court, while passing the order, the respondent/petitioner proved that job work was not under his supervision. 11. He admits as follows: “TAMIL” 9. Evidence of RW-2 as follows: “TAMIL” 10. So, the evidence of RW-1 and RW-2 clearly proves that the alleged two outsider job works were not supervised by the respondent herein. Hence as discussed by the Principal Labour Court, while passing the order, the respondent/petitioner proved that job work was not under his supervision. 11. The following authorities received by respondent also support his contention: (i) C.E.S.C. Limited vs. Subhash Chandra Bose and Others, 1992 Lab. I.C. 332. Employee’s State Insurance Act (1948), S.2(9) - Employee - Who is - Employment through immediate employer - Establishment of employer - employee relationship between principal employer and employees appointed by immediate employer -Determination - Criteria - Supervision by principal employer or his agent, of work of employees appointed by immediate employer - Essential. (ii) Managing Director, Hassan Co-Operative Milk Producers’ Society Union Limited vs. Assistant Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, 2010 (II) LLJ 860 (SC). Employee’s State Insurance Act (34 of 1948) - Section 2(9) - ‘Employee’ - Meaning of - Person employed through immediate employer (contractor) to be considered ‘Employee’ to satisfy either of conditions: employment in premises of factory or establishment or under supervision of Principal employer - On facts neither of conditions was fulfilled - Orders fixing liability to pay contribution for persons employed by contractor set aside.” 12. The trial Court rightly concluded that the job done by the outsiders had not been supervised by the respondent herein. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant against the respondent is unsustainable. 13. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, and the order of the Employees Insurance Court/Principal Labour Court, Chennai is confirmed No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.