Judgement JUDGMENT :- This appeal is against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Madras, in E. S. I. No. 2 of 1957. The appellant herein, the East Asiatic Co. (India) Private Ltd., Madras, filed a petition under Sec. 73-B of the Employees State Insurance Act for a declaration that they were not liable to the Employees State Insurance Corporation for the employers special contribution in respect of their tannery at Vaniyambadi. They prayed that the sum of Rs. 2726 paid by them by way of employers contribution for the quarter ended 31st March 1953 to 30th June 1955 be ordered to be refunded to them by the respondent, trot the order of the Regional Director calling upon the applicant herein to pay employers special contribution for the quarter ended 30th September 1955 upto the date of filing the petition before the Additional Commission for Workmens Compensation should be set aside and that the order of the Regional Director (respondent herein) calling upon the appellant herein to submit returns for all quarters from the quarter ended 31st December 1953 upto the date of filing the petition before the Additional Commissioner for Workmens Compensation should also be set aside. The allegation made in the petition was that the appellants tannery at Vaniyambadi was not a factory within the definition of factory in Sec. 2(12) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. They also contended that power was not used in their tannery in the manufacturing process itself. The respondent herein alleged that the tannery was a factory that the appellant was liable to pay the contribution, that the claim for refund of the contribution already paid was unsustainable, and. that the appellant herein was also bound in law to pay the special contribution up to the date of filing the petition. The controversy between the parties before the Additional Commissioner for Workmens Compensation is whether the tannery in question comes within the mischief of S. 2(12) of the Employees State Insurance Act. Evidence has been adduced by N. Kuppanna Rao, Superintendent of the appellants tannery at Vaniyambadi. rise stated that though there was a well inside the factory premises and an oil engine, the water was not used in the manufacturing process due to technical reasons an that therefore water from the well which was outside the premises of the tannery was taken for manufacturing, process. rise stated that though there was a well inside the factory premises and an oil engine, the water was not used in the manufacturing process due to technical reasons an that therefore water from the well which was outside the premises of the tannery was taken for manufacturing, process. The Additional Commissioner for Workmens Compensation was of the opinion that in view of the admitted fact : that there was a well inside the tannery of the appellant and an oil engine was used to pump water from that well, it was not necessary for him to go into the contention put forth by the appellant that water for manufacturing process was drawn, from the well which was situated; a furlong away from the tannery and the well was separated by a different premises and precincts of another factory and therefore there was no manufacturing process with the aid of power in any part of the premises of the tannery. He held that the tannery was a factory as defined in Sec. 2(12) of the Employees State Insurance Act. I am not able to agree with the order passed by the Additional Commissioner. He must be satisfied whether the manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power in any part of the premises. When one it is proved that the appellant is making the of the water from the well situated outside the factory premises, it cannot be said that they are carrying on manufacturing process with the aid of power in any part of the premises. A similar question arose in W. P. No. 691 of 1959. (A. B. Mohammed Sulaiman v. Regional Director, Employees, State Insurance Corporation, Madras). In that petition Veeraswami, J. has observed that the essential requisites of the definition of "factory" in. S.2(12) are : (1) the premises including their precincts, (2) 20 or more persons working there, and (3) a manufacturing process carried on, in the premises including the precincts with the aid of power. The learned Judge has also observed that the respondent in that case has not been able to show that the pumping of water is done within the precincts of the factory. The learned Judge has also observed that the respondent in that case has not been able to show that the pumping of water is done within the precincts of the factory. Therefore he has observed that it cannot be held; that because of the pumping of water with the aid of power from the land lying outside the premises and precincts of the tannery, the tannery is a factory within the statutory definition under the Employees State Insurance Act. Following the above principles laid down by Veeraswami, J. I feel that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner for Workmens Compensation is not correct. Further, he has not given any definite finding whether water is being used from the well situated within the factory premises with the aid of power. 2. The respondent has raised another point that this appeal is not maintainable, as it was filed under S. 82(2) of the Act. It is true that the petition was filed under S. 73-B because at the time of filing this petition there was no Employees Insurance Court having jurisdiction to try the dispute between the employer and the employee But at that time, by a notification, the Government of India authorised the Additional Commissioner for Workmens Compensation to hear disputes under Ch. V-A of the Employees State Insurance Act, The procedures that have to be followed are mentioned in Ss. 76 to 79 of the Act. Section 82(2) says that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of the Employees Insurance Court, if it involves a substantial question of law. I am satisfied that this appeal is maintainable under S. 82(2) as it involves a substantial question of law. Therefore the contention raised by the State that the appeal is not maintainable under S. 82(2) has no substance. I hold that the appeal is maintainable. 3. The appeal is allowed, but, in the circumstances, on costs. Appeal allowed.