The question that is involved in this appeal is whether "Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Limited", a public limited company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, is a 'shop' coming within the purview of Section 1(4) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ("the Act", for short), or under any notification issued under Section 1(5) of the Act, including the Government notification dated 9-1-1987.

2. The Employees' State Insurance Court answered the said question in the negative giving rise to this appeal by the ESI Corporation.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Corporation submitted that the respondent-company comes within the expression 'shop' and, as such, the provisions of the Act become applicable by virtue of Section 1(5) of the Act. It is contended that the ESI Court failed to properly appreciate the law bearing on the point with regard to the meaning of the word 'shop' as well as with regard to the scope of the Act. It is her submission that although the respondent-company is established with the sole object of encouraging and affording all the facilities and cultivating the habit of thrift and to render financial assistance to its members, yet, the activities carried on by the respondent brings it within the fold of an establishment carrying on commercial activities and the respondent-company, though has confined its objects to its members alone, yet, the fact that the services are rendered to the members of the respondent itself is sufficient to bring it within the coverage of the Act having regard to the meaning assigned to the word 'shop' by the pronouncement of the Apex Court in a number of decisions. It \vas also contended that, although the members cannot be bracketed within the expression 'customers', yet, the nature of the activities carried on by the respondent does bring it within the ambit of the word 'shop' and, therefore, the ESI Court was in en-or in allowing the application filed under Section 75 of the Act by the respondent and declaring the respondent as not a 'shop'.

5. In support of her submissions, the learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decisions in M/s. Hindu Jea Band, Jaipur v Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Jaipur1 and M/s. Cochin Shipping Company v Employees' State Insurance Corporation2.

6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent-company, by referring to Section 620-A of the Companies Act, submitted that the expression 'Nidhi' or 'Mutual Benefit Society' means a company, which is notified in the Official Gazette and declared to be a Nidhi or Mutual Benefit Society and referring to the above section of the Companies Act, it was submitted that the respondent-company deals only with their members and, therefore, the business is restricted to receiving the deposits from the lending money to the members and its main source of income or profit is the difference between the interest paid to and earned from the members. The idea behind the establishment of such Nidhi, it was contended, is to enable the members to save money and to invest their savings and to inculcate the idea of thrift and compulsory savings in the minds of the poor and middle class people and, as such, they are not co-operative societies, but run on the same principle and their number is appreciable.

7. It was further, contended that the respondent-company is meant exclusively for the members alone and it has got no dealings with the general public and, as such, its operation does not extend beyond the sphere of the members and, therefore, the applicability of the Act and muchless the respondent-company coming within the expression 'shop' will not arise.

8. The learned Counsel for the respondent also drew my attention to the Memorandum and Article of Association of the company in question and, referring to the main objects to be pursued by the company, submitted that the object is to encourage t