The definition of 'manufacturing process' in the ESI Act and the Factories Act should be interpreted broadly and comprehensively to encompass activities that involve treating or adapting articles or substances for their use, sale, transport, delivery, or disposal, even if such activities do not result in a transformation or the emergence of a new marketable commodity.

1. IN this appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, against the judgment and order dated 16th May, 1979 passed by Shri P. K. Ghosh judge, employees' Insurance Court, West Bengal in Case No. 4o of 1977 under section 75 of the aforesaid Act, the only substantial question of law which has been urged and agitated before us for our consideration and decision is whether the appellant firm (M/s. Baranagar Service Station)is a 'factory' as defined in section 2 (12) of the Estates' State Insurance act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to bring the said firm under the coverage of the Act.

2. THE Appellant firm as applicant filed the application under 'section 75 of the Act against the respondent opposite party. Employees' State insurance Corporation praying for a declaration that the applicant firm was not covered under the Act and that the firm was not liable to pay any amount under the Act to the opposite party and for permanent injunction restraining the opposite party from taking any steps for recovery of the money as demanded through certificate proceeding. The brief case of the applicant firm was that it was a petrol pump registered under the Shops and Establishment Act and it carried on business of sale of petrol, diesel, motor spirit, lubricants etc. and carried on also the servicing of the vehicles brought by the customers and other things incidental thereto and that it had nothing to do with any manufacturing process. The firm accordingly being not a factory as defined in the Act did not come under the coverage of the Act. The certificate proceeding started at the instance of the opposite party for realisation of certain amounts under the Act from the firm was therefore illegal. Accordingly the application under section 75 of the Act was filed for the relief as all ready stated. .

3. THE application was opposed by the opposite party contending inter alia that the nature of the work and business carried on by the firm with the aid of the power and with the employment of labourers numbering more that 20 made the firm a factory as defined in the act and accordingly brought the firm under the coverage of the Act.

4. BEFORE the learned Judge, the work and carrying on the business of the firm with the aid of the power and with the employment, of the labourers numbering more than 20 was not disputed. The only dispute was raised with regard to the carrying on of any manufacturing process which is also one of the essential ingredients to bring the firm or establishment under the category of the factory as defined in Section 2 (12) of the Act. The learned Judge on consideration of the materials and the provisions of law in this respect, found the firm to be a factory as defined in the Act and accordingly held that the firm rightly came under the coverage of the Act. The learned Judge therefore dismissed the application under section 75 of the Act by the impugned judgment and order.

Mr. Bose appearing for the appellant firm has confined his submission only to the question whether the nature of the work and business carried on by the firm is the manufacturing process as defined in section 2 (k) of the Factories Act to make the firm a factory as defined in Section 2 (12) of the Act for the purpose of bringing the; firm under the coverage of the Act. Mr. Bose's submission is that it does not and he has relied on the following decisions:-

(i) In re. A. M. Chinniah, Manager 7x6 Sangu Soap Works v. The state, A. I. R. 1957 Mad. 755

(ii) Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. M/s. Triplex Dry Cleaners and Ors., 1982 Lab; I. C. 944

(iii) Col. Sardar C. S. Angre \. State, A. I. R. 1965 Raj. 65

(iv) Allenbury flngjtieers (P) Ltd. v. Ramikrishna Dairnia and Ors. A. I. R. I973 S. C. 425

5. MR. Mukherji appearing for the respondent has made his submission in support of the impugned judgment and order and has relied on the following decisions placing stress upon the fact that regard being had to the labour welfare l