The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the last date and the judgment was reserved. Today, the Appeal is kept for dictation of judgment.

2. The Appeal is preferred under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ESI Act). The Appeal will lie only on a substantial question H of Jaw. The Appellant- Employees' State Insurance Corporation and its officers have taken exception to the judgment and order dated September 18, 1995 passed by the learned Judge of the Employees' State Insurance Court, Solapur. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Judge of the ESI Court allowed the application filed by the Respondent under Section 75 of the ESI Act. By the impugned judgement and order, the learned Judge held that the Respondent was not a factory within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the ESI Act and its members are not employees within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the ESI Act. The learned Judge restrained the first appellant- 25 Corporation from recovering any contribution from the Respondent on the basis of order dated March 20, 1985.

3. For the purposes of appreciating the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case. The Respondent is a society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter 35 referred to as the said Act of 1960). The Respondent-Society had a work-shed situated on Final Plot No.34, sub-plot No. 44, New Pacha Peth, Solapur. The shed originally belonged to another society which got amalgamated with the Respondent-society in the year 1976. According to the Respondent the work-shed was meant for use for preparation' of back process required for handlooms. There' was a winding machine of the respondent Society which required aid of power. The said winding machine became operational on November 15,1980. The winding machine was used for winding of yarn which was used for production of bed-sheet etc. According to the case of the Respondent, the said Society used to supply yarn beams prepared on the winding machine to its members on job work basis charging 50 paise per bundle and the Respondent-Society was never involved in manufacture of handloom bed-sheets etc. According to the Respondent the object of the society was to supply raw material to its members and to purchase finished product from the members. After receipt of the finished goods from the members, the Society used to deduct the price of raw material supplied by it to the members and balance amount of price of the finished goods was being paid as salary to its members. According to the case of the Respondent, in fact the amount was being paid by way of production charges. The contention of the Respondent was that the staff working in the shed never exceeded four and therefore, work-shed was not a factory. It was contended by the Respondent that on or about December 9, 1981 the inspector appointed by the first Appellant visited the shed and he prepared a report in English language. On the basis of the report, the Appellants intimated to the Respondent on June 21, 1989 that the Society was covered under the Act from September 16, 1976.

4. According to the case of the Respondent though the inspector was to visit the shed on May 6, 1983, on the request made the Respondent the visit was postponed. On /May-13, 1983 show-cause notice was served to the Respondent demanding contribution of Rs. 76, 552. 75/ - for the period between September 16, 1976 to September 30, 1982. It was contended that the demand for contribution was illegal and was barred by limitation. The other contentions raised in the Application were that the work-shed was not a factory and the members who were paid wages by the Respondent were not employees within the meaning of the E. S. 1. Act.

5. The Appellants contested the Application made by the Respondent by filing written statem