Rajesh H. Shukla, J.

1. The present first appeal is filed by the appellant ESI Corporation under sec. 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ESI Act') being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order in ESI Application No. 19/2013 by the ESI Court dated 9.11.2001 on the grounds stated in the memo of appeal.

2. Heard learned advocate Shri Shashikant Gade for the appellant and learned advocate Umesh Trivedi for the respondent.

3. Learned advocate Shri Gade referred to the background of facts that the respondent is a restaurant and therefore the court below has failed to consider that the ice-cream, cold drinks and foodstuff are preserved with the aid of deep freezer and was employing more than 10 employees and therefore it would have been covered as per the definition of the provisions of the ESI Act. For that, he referred to sec. 2(12) and submitted that the word "factory" has been defined in the ESI Act where the manufacturing process is being carried on. He submitted that the word "manufacturing process" is defined in the Factories Act, 1948 and it has been specifically stated in sec. 2(14AA) of the ESI Act that "manufacturing