IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 25 of 2007(F) ------------------------------------ I.C.25/2003 OF E.S.I COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT: ------------------------------------ BIJU & COMPANY,PALACE ROAD,THRISSUR. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,V.J.GEORGE, VADAKKEMULLOTH,KALOOR,COCHIN-17. BY ADV. SMT.C.G.BINDU, SMT.C.G.AJITHA, SMT.SEEMA.E.GEORGE, SMT.D.SARITHA. RESPONDENTS/ OPPOSITE PARTY: --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,E.S.I CORPORATION, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND,THRISSUR. 2. RECOVERY OFFICER,E.S.I CORPORATION, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND,THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR, SC, ESI CORPN., FOR R1 & R2. THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== INAP No.25 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 28th day of July 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order of the Employees' Insurance Court, Palakkad in I.A.No.25 of 2003. The applicant therein has challenged the decision of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation contending that there is no manufacturing process with the aid of the power on the shop and that the total number of employees is only 7 and therefore the provisions of the E.S.I.Act are not attracted to the shop. The E.I.Court found that the using of paint mixing machine to make different colours amounts to manufacturing as contemplated under the provisions of the Factories Act. It further held that from the materials available, it can be seen that necessary number of persons are there for attracting the application of Section 2(12)(a) of the E.S.I Act. Learned counsel for the appellant very strongly contends before me that a mixing machine is supplied by the manufacturer and they are not manufacturing anything and therefore no manufacturing process is carried and so the said Section will not be attracted. On the other hand, the E.I.Court referred to Section 2(14AA), INAP 25/2007 -:2:- wherein by virtue of an amendment, it has been stated that the manufacturing process shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Factories Act of 1948. Section 2(k) of the Factories Act deals with 'manufacturing process'. There the 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. The E.I. Court held that it is an admitted fact that the applicant is using paint mixing machine to make different colour paints according to the requirements of the customers. By mixing the paintbase with stainer an entirely different colour paint is produced. Therefore the said mixing will amount to a process of altering, treating or adapting an article or substance with a view to its sale which is nothing but a manufacturing process as defined under Section 2(k)(i) of the Factors Act, 1948. I totally agree with the said interpretation and the finding given by the E.I.Court. Therefore it does not call for any interference. 3. So far as the second question is concerned, it is a pure question of fact that how many employees are there and there is nothing placed before this Court to show that it was on account of a perverse or illegal approach. Therefore that question will not amount to the raising of a substantial INAP 25/2007 -:3:- question of law. Therefore it also cannot be entertained. From these discussions, there is nothing to interfere with the decision rendered by the E.I.Court. Therefore the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-