RAJASEKHARA MURTHY, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of order dated 19. 9. 1979 passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Bangalore, on an application filed by the appellant herein, under Section 75 (g) of the Employees State Insurance act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the esi Act) on ESI Application No. 2/1976.

( 2 ) THE appellant-company, a hotelier, was called upon by the respondent to pay contributions from 1. 4. 1975 to 27. 9. 1975 under the ESI Act in respect of the 82 workmen employed in Hotel East-West, Bangalore. The appellant thereupon filed an application under S. 75 (g) of the ESI Act before the ESI Court, Bangalore, seeking a declaration that its establishment, namely, Hotel east-West, Bangalore, is not covered by the provisions of the ESI Act, and that therefore, they are not liable to make the contributions demanded.

( 3 ) THE ESI Court, by its order dated 19. 9. 1979, dismissed the application and held that the appellant is a 'factory' and is bound to pay the contributions under the act. This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the said order of the ESI court.

( 4 ) IT is contended on behalf of the appellant that the ESI Court erred in holding that the kitchen, attached to its hotel, is a 'factory', within the meaning of that word as defined under - Section 2 (12) of the ESI Act. It is also urged that the ESI court erred in holding that the activities carried on in the kitchen attached to the respondent-hotel involve 'manufacturing process' and hence the appellant is under an obligation to make contributions as required under the Act. Lastly, it is contended that the State Government has not issued any notification under Sec. 1 (5) of the ESI Act extending the provisions of the Act to establishments like the appellant's Hotel and that therefore the appellant is not amenable to the provisions of the ESI Act.

( 5 ) THE points that arise for our consideration in this appeal are: (i) Whether the appellant's establishment is a 'factory' as defined under Sec. 2 (12) of the Act? (ii) Whether preparation of articles of food in the kitchen, attached to the respondent-hotel, involves 'manufacturing process' and, (iii) Whether a Notification under Sec. 1 (5) of the Act by the State Government, is necessary in order to extend the provisions of the Act to a hotel? in order to appreciate the contentions of the appellant, it is necessary to set-out the scheme of the Act and its objects. The ESI Act is a Social Security Legislation. It seeks to provide for certain benefits to the employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and makes provisions for certain other matters relating thereto. The provisions of the Act, in the first instance, are made applicable to all 'factories' other than 'seasonal factories' under Sec. 1 (4 ). They may be extended to any other establishment or class of establishments, industrial, commercial, agricultural or otherwise, by an appropriate notification issued by the State Government as provided under Section 1 (5) of the Act. 'employee' under the Act means, any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory or establishment to which the Act applies 'factory' is defined in the ESI Act, but not 'establishment'. 'establishment' is a far wider term than 'factory' which has a specific legal connotation and meaning under the Act. Since 'establishment' is not defined in the ESI Act, we have to adopt its ordinary meaning and for all purposes, we may adopt its meaning as defined in the Karnataka Shops and Commercial establishments Act, 1961. 'establishment' as defined under that Act means a shop or a commercial establishment. 'commercial Establishment' is defined under the said Act as follows: 'commercial establishment' means a commercial or trading or banking or insurance establishment, an establishment or administrative service in which persons employed or mainly engaged in office work, a hotel, restaurant, boarding or eating house, a cafe or any oth

Click Here to Read the rest of this document