V. JAGANNATHAN, J.

( 1 ) IN this appeal the question that arises for consideration is, whether an establishment engaged in the business of sales and service of electrical appliance like mixers, fans, air conditioners etc. , comes within the definition of manufacturing process so as to attract the applicability of employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act of 1948' ).

( 2 ) THE facts which have led to this appeal briefly stated are to the effect that the appellant-ESI corporation demanded contribution from the respondent-establishment for the period from 1. 4. 1999 to 30. 9. 1999 and from 1. 10. 1999 to 31. 3. 2000 in a sum of Rs. 30,674/- and the said order of the corporation came to be assailed before the ESI Court under an application filed under Section 75 of the Act of 1948 by the respondent and based on the material placed by both sides, the ESI court came to the conclusion that the respondent-establishment was neither engaged in the manufacture of any of the home appliances with which it was dealing nor the establishment was doing anything so as to give a finishing touch to the appliance and as such, the question of any manufacturing process being carried on by the respondent-establishment will not arise and following the said reasoning, the ESI Court allowed the application filed by the respondent by holding that the respondent-establishment is not coverable under the ESI Act and consequently, the order passed by the corporation came to be set aside giving rise to this appeal by the ESI Corporation.

( 3 ) I have heard the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Corporation Smt. Geetha Devi contended that the definition of manufacturing process is wide enough to cover the activity carried on by the respondent and the very fact that power was used and more than 10 persons were employed by the respondent coupled with the fact that the respondent is engaged in sales and service of electrical appliance, all the requirement of manufacturing process is, therefore, met with and as such, the respondent was coverable under the purview of the ESI Act. The Court below has failed to take note of the definition of manufacturing process and also the law laid down by the Apex Court in this regard and has just passed the order which is unsustainable in law.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-establishment Sr. Ravish submitted that it is not in dispute that the respondent-M/s. Ambika Appliances (P) Ltd. is engaged in sales and service of home appliances like mixers, fridge, T. V. etc. , but as no manufacturing process is actually carried on by the respondent and as the respondent is in no way connected with either the manufacturing process or the end product, the question of any manufacturing process being carried on by the respondent will not arise and consequently, the ESI Act has no application to the respondent and as such, the order of the ESI Court calls for no interference.

( 6 ) HAVING thus heard both sides and after carefully going through the entire material on record as well as the evidence let in by the parties and the rulings cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Counsel for the respondent, the only point for consideration is, whether the respondent can be considered to have been engaged in manufacturing process so as to bring it within the fold of the ESI Act? Since the facts concerning the respondent using power and the further fact that more than 10 persons were employed by the respondent and that the respondent is engaged in sales and service of electrical appliance not being in dispute, I confine, the discussion only with regard to the activity of the respondent being covered within the definition of 'manufacturing process' or not and the answer to this question would decide the out come of this appeal also.

( 7 ) 'manufacturing process' is defined under Section 2 (k) of the Factories Act, 1948 thus:

2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document