R.C. Chavan, J.

This appeal by the Employee's State Insurance Corporation is directed against judgment of Employee's State Insurance Court, South Goa, in Employee's State Insurance case No. 1-92, whereby the learned Judge set aside appellant's order dated 14.2.92 under Section 45-A of the Employee's State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. Facts which are relevant for deciding this appeal are as under. Respondent runs a hotel and bar which employed more than ten workers in 12 months period commencing from April 1990. Respondent was using power for a deep freezer and a bottle cooler to preserve raw materials and for cooling drinks.

3. The learned Judge of Employee's State Insurance Court, relying on judgment of this Court in Ritz Hotel v. E.S.I.C. Pune reported at 1995 (I) CIR 289, held that there was no nexus between preparation of food and the use of deep freezer/bottle cooler and that use of these gadgets on power is not for manufacturing or preparing food. He, therefore, concluded that the respondent's establishment was not covered and allowed respondent's application.

4. I have heard Advocate Ms. Agni for the appellant and Advocate Shri S.G. Bhobe for respondent. Clause (4) of State Insurance of Employee's State Insurance Act makes the provisions of the Act applicable to all factories. Clause 12 of Section 2 defines a factory to include a place where ten or more persons are employed for wages on any day in preceding 12 months and in which manufacturing process is carried on with the aid of power. Clause 14 AA of Section 2 prescribes that the term 'manufacturing process' shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Factories Act. Section 2(k) of Factories Act defines manufacturing process as under :

"manufacturing process" means any process for-

(i) making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, packing, oiling, washing, cleaning, breaking up, demolishing, or otherwise treating or adapting any article or substance with a view to its use, sale, transport, delivery or disposal, or

(ii) pumping oil, water, sewage or any other substance; or

(iii) generating, transforming or transmitting power; or

(iv) composing types for printing, printing by letter press, lithography, photogravure or other similar process or book binding; or

(v) constructing, reconstructing, repairing, refitting, finishing or breaking up ships or vessels; or

(vi) preserving or storing any article in cold storage;

5. Hotels employing more than 20 persons where food is cooked have been held to be factories by Judgment of this Court reported at 1980 LAB IC 100, Poona Industrial Hotel Ltd. v. I.C. Sarin and another, and of the Supreme Court (1993) 4 SCC 363, G.L. Hotels Limited and others v. T.C. Sarin and another. It would be a 'factory' when it employs wore than 10 but less than 20 persons and where manufacturing process is carried on with the aid of power. The question in this case is whether use of a deep freezer or water cooler run on power would imply that respondent's establishment is carrying on a manufacturing process with the aid of power.

6. Learned Counsel for appellant, relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in The Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation v. Ram Chander reported at AIR 1988 SC 113, pointed out that when an electric iron was used to iron clothes in tailoring shop, the Court held that such establishment was covered by the provisions of Employee's State Insurance Act. However, that decision may be unhelpful since ironing would amount to "finishing" a garment for sale, covered under Section 2(k)(i) of Factories Act.

7. In face of judgment of this Court in Ritz Hotel v. E.S.I.C. Pune reported at 1995 (I) CLR 289, where sub-clause (vi) of Section 2(k) of Factories Act was specifically considered in relation to a hotel, it may not be open to come to any difference conclusion. Deep freezer is used to preserve raw material and is not shown to be used to process the food articles before they are