THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.886 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, is directed against order dated 16.04.2002 passed in E.I. Case No.71 of 1999 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, whereunder the petition filed by the respondent herein under Section 75 (1) (g) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the ‘E.S.I. Act’), seeking a declaration that the provisions of E.S.I Act are not applicable to the establishment of the petitioner/ respondent herein and consequently to set aside the impugned notice dated 14.09.1999, is allowed setting aside the impugned order of demand to pay the contribution. There is no necessity of going into all the details. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition i.e., “Whether the diagnostic Centres are covered under the provisions of the E.S.I Act” was already dealt in Vijaya Diagnostic Centre, Hyderabad vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad[1], wherein it was held as under: “Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 – Sec. 1(5) and 2(12) and 2(14-AA) – Whether diagnostic centre’s/pathological center’s carry on ‘Manufacturing process’ as defined under Section 2 (k) of the Factories Act, 1948 and as such they fall within meaning of ‘Factory’ under Section 2(12) of Employees State Insurance Act – Administrative Institutions do not have any statutory force as that of the enactment made by Legislature nor can be enforceable and apart from that – Unless the provisions of the Act itself are made applicable to establishments they cannot be brought within purview of the said Act – While interpreting particular provision of the Act the definition of any other enactment with regard to manufacture cannot be borrowed unless the Acts are in pari materia – Definition of word ‘Manufacturing process’ includes otherwise treating or adopting any article or substance with a view to use, sale, transport, delivery or disposal – ‘Manufacturing process’ has been defined under Section 2(k) of the Factories Act so as to cover appellants establishments under the ESI Act – Orders passed by ESI Court holding that the activities that are being undertaken by appellants would come within meaning of ‘Manufacturing process’ – Orders passed by ESI Court are set aside – Appeals are allowed.” Learned counsel for the appellant-E.S.I Corporation submits that being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the E.S.I Corporation has carried the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court and the same is pending without any relief of grant of stay of the order impugned therein. He further submits that while the matter stood thus, a notification under Section 1 of E.S.I Act, notifying the diagnostic centres to be covered by the E.S.I. Act, has been issued. I am not inclined to either agree or disagree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant as to the notification stated by him, since the issuance of such notification has not come up for consideration in this matter. In view of the above and the findings recorded in the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not warrant interference of this Court and the civil miscellaneous appeal is therefore liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 01.07.2010 v v [1] 2005(6) ALT 813