ORDER

1. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether Respondent 1 (hereinafter to be referred to as the respondent) is an establishment within the meaning of that expression under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act").

2. The respondent is carrying on the business of dry cleaning. According to the appellant, implicit in the dry cleaning of clothes is the ironing thereafter with the help of electric iron and therefore, the respondent has to be regarded as undertaking "manufacturing process" and as it employs more than 10 employees, it is covered under the provisions of the Act.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the decision of this Court in Regional Director, ESI Corpn. v. Ram Chander (1988 Supp SCC 90 : 1988 SCC (Tax) 153 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 470) and sought to contend that the ratio of the said decision is applicable to the instant case.

4. In Ram Chander case (1988 Supp SCC 90 : 1988 SCC (Tax) 153 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 470) the establishment was that of tailoring shop where electric iron was used after the clothes were stitched. The question which arose there was whether the tailoring s