JUDGMENT :

M G Giratkar, J.

The appeal is against the judgment of the Industrial Court, Nagpur in Application (ESI) No. 7 of 1993.

2. The material facts which give rise to the present appeal in short is as under.

(i) The appellant and the respondent no. 2 are the separate establishments. Employees State Insurance Inspector Shri Pande visited the premises on 5-9-1991, 6-9-1991, 19-11-1991 and lastly, on 21-11-1991 and submitted report to the respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 1 issued order dated 20-8-1992, 17-3-1993 and notice dated 2-6-1993 directing the appellant to pay Rs. 21,917/- for the period from 3-3-1991 to 30-9-1992. The respondent no. 1 on the basis of report submitted by the Inspector Shri Pande came to the conclusion that the appellant and respondent no. 2 are internally connected and they are one and the same undertaking.

(ii) The application under Section 75(1)(g) of the Employees State Insurance (ESI) Act,1948 was filed by the appellant before the Industrial Court, Nagpur for setting aside the order and notice issued by the respondent no. 1. After recording the evidence of both the parties, the Industrial Court dismissed the application, hence, the present appeal.

3. Heard learned Advocate Shri Wachasunder for the appellant. He has pointed out documents and evidence on record. Learned Advocate has submitted that the appellant and the respondent no. 2 are the separate entities. There is no functional interconnectivity and, therefore, both the undertakings are separate. The employees are separately working and, therefore, the provisions of ESI Act are not applicable. He has pointed out evidence of partners, namely, Gurubhau Nardelwar and Shrihari Patil.

4. Shrihari Patil is the common partner in both the undertakings. Learned Advocate for the appellant has pointed out evidence of Pundlik Shelke, Area Manager working in MIDC, Nagpur. Learned Advocate has submitted that Plot No. S-42/1 belongs to appellant and Plot No. S-53 belong to the respondent no. 2. Learned Advocate has submitted that both the undertakings are working on separate plots. Learned Advocate has submitted that there is no interconnection between two undertakings, therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the Industrial Court is liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. Heard learned Advocate Shri Almelkar for the respondent no. 2. He has supported the arguments advanced by learned Advocate Shri Wachasunder.

6. Heard learned Advocate Mrs. Maldhure for the respondent no. 1. She has pointed out the report submitted by Inspector Shri Pande to the respondent no. 1. Learned Advocate has pointed out evidence of Shri Pande and submitted that witness visited the undertaking of the appellant on 5-9-1991,6-9-1991,19-11-1991 and lastly, on 21-11-1991. As per his report, the appellant and the respondent no. 2 are working in the same premises. Nature of work is same. Employees of both the undertakings are same. The work of appellant and the respondent no. 2 was carried on Plot No. S-42/1. The machineries were fitted on Plot No. S-42/1. Electric charges were paid by the appellant and not by the respondent no. 2. As per the personal observations of Shri Pande, more than 16 employees were working in the establishments of appellant and the respondent no. 2. Those employees were common. No separate muster roll was prepared by the respondent no. 2 and the appellant. The muster roll does not show the names of employer. One of the employees, namely, Lokhande prepared the challan for both undertakings. All this evidence shows that respondent no. 2 and the appellant are one and the same undertaking having more than 16 employees, and therefore, covered under the ESI Act.

7. Appellant tried to show that both the appellant and the respondent no. 2 are the separate entities. To support their contention, they have examined area manager of MIDC Shri Pundlik Shelke. In his examinati