1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO.284 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.38 OF 2007. (EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPN..Vs.. M/S. HOTEL SHREE VAIBHAV) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Smt. B.P. Maldhure, Advocate for Appellant. Shri I.L. Bhoot, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : K.J.ROHEE AND R.C.CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 18, 2008. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Substantial question of law posed before the learned single Judge was : “Whether the use of air conditioners in the establishment of the employer Hotel for the use of its customers would be a “manufacturing process” within the meaning of S.2 (k) of the Factories Act ?” 2. After considering the definition of the 'manufacturing process” as given in the Factories Act, 1948, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the use 2 of air conditioners could have been said to be covered in the definition of 'manufacturing process' only if some alterations are done to the aid conditioner or the air conditioner is modified to make it suitable for new use. Mere use of air conditioners in the lodging rooms for the comfort of the customers would not be sufficient to hold that the employer Hotel was carrying on 'manufacturing process' within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Factories Act. Accordingly the learned single Judge answered the question in the negative and against the Corporation. We do not see any reason to take any other view from the one taken by the learned single Judge. 3. We find no force in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE RR.