Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE appellant's unit is hotel and according to respondent Employees State Insurance Corporation since the appellant is falling in the definition of factory as given in Section 2(12) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, and engaged in manufacturing process as defined in Sub -section (14 -AA) of Section 2 of the Act of 1948 read with Sub -clause (k) in Section 2 of the Factories Act, the appellant's unit is though, a hotel is a factually engaged in manufacturing process and therefore is covered under the E.S.I. Act, 1948. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant is not engaged in manufacturing process nor a factory and not engaging in manufacturing process. The E.S.I. Court vide its order dt. 4th March 2006 held that the appellant is engaged in manufacturing process as per the Clause 2k of the Factories Act, 1948.
(3.) I considered submission of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant provisions of law.;