1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 140 OF 2008 Shri Sainath Rural Education Society vs. Employees State Ins. Corp. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. APRIL 15, 2008. Heard Shri Ghate, Advocate for the appellant and Smt. Maldhure, Advocate for the respondent. The appeal is filed under Section 82 of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, and therefore can be admitted if substantial question of law arises in it. The Employees State Insurance Court while adjudicating application under Section 75 of the Act, moved by present appellant challenging applicability of provisions of Employees State Insurance Act to its establishment, has found that total number of employees in Saibaba Blood Bank was 13 and establishment was carrying out manufacturing activities as contemplated by Section 2(k) of Factories Act, 1948, read with Section 2(14AA) of ESI Act. The learned counsel appearing for the 2 appellant has contended that in order to show that number of employees exceed 10, the respondent wanted to club four different units of present appellant together. He further contended that the Muster Roll (Exh. 26) on which ESI Court has placed reliance does not belong to the appellant. It is lastly argued that the operations undertaken by Blood Bank do not constitute manufacturing activity. The support is taken from the judgment of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Vijaya Diagnostic Centre vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad, reported at 2006 Lab. I.C. 1. I have perused the impugned judgment with the assistance of both counsel. The learned Member of Industrial Court has found that number of employees was exceeding 10. The perusal of cross examination of present appellant reveals that Muster Roll (Exh. 26) was put to him and he has deposed about the same as under : “Now I am shown copies of monthly muster roll from July 2003 and August 2003. There are four sheet having rubber stamps of the applicant establishment. On all pages 13 names are mentioned on the muster roll. It is at Ex.26/1 to 26/4. All the four sheets are signed by the applicant 3 employee.” It is obvious that in cross, the authenticity of these documents was not at all questioned, though at the end the witness has stated that it was not correct that there were 13 employees with the establishment and the establishment was covered under ESI. However, the perusal of Ex.26/1 to 26/4 produced by the respondent reveal that the document is Muster roll for July 2003 and August 2003. The contention, therefore, that four units sought to be clubbed to show requisite strength of employees is not borne out from record. The learned counsel for the respondent has during the arguments at the threshold itself made it clear that such an attempt was given up before ESI Court also and before this Court also the respondent is not seeking clubbing of any other establishment of applicant with its blood bank. The definition given in Section 2(k) of “manufacturing process” in Factories Act shows that process for altering or breaking up or otherwise treating or adapting any article or substance with a view to use it for sale, delivery, disposal, is squarely covered. The learned ESI Court has found that the blood components and blood plasma was being separated in applicant bank and was being sold. It is also 4 noticed that the charges recovered by applicant are shown as service charges. In view of the nature of activity of applicant as a blood bank, it is apparent that blood collected is treated for preservation, its components and constituents are separated and are used for various purposes. The recovery of service charges is not in dispute. The finding of Court below that it is manufacturing process, therefore, is neither perverse nor erroneous. The learned counsel for the appellant at this stage states that one of the contentions of applicant before ESI Court was that most of the persons working with it were either Doctors or Technicians and they were only accepting honorarium. However, in view of 13 employees mentioned in Exh. 26, I find that this contention does not in any way help the present appellant. Even otherwise definition of wages in ESI Act is very wide. No substantial question of law, therefore, arises in this First Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.