JUDGMENT H. L. Agrawal, J. This is an appeal under section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to only as 'the Act') by the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Patna, a statutory body under the Act (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) from an order passed by the Employees' Insurance Court constituted under section 74 of the Act. 2. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether respondent No. 2, namely, The Art Press, is a factory within the meaning of section 2 (12) of the Act. 3. An application under section 75 (2) of the Act was filed by the appellant in the Employees' Insurance Court [or the recovery of a sum of Rs. 699-00 from the respondents as employees' contribution for the period 1.6.1966 to 31.5.1967. According to the Corporation, respondent No.2 was a 'factory' within the meaning of section 2 (12) of the Act and that, therefore, it was liable to pay the employees' contribution. This claim was resisted by the respondents on the ground inter alia, that the respondent no. 2 was not a factory as defined in the Act, in as much as it employed less than twenty persons on any day during the period in question or during the preceding twelve moths of the period and, A provisions of the Act were not applicable to it. 4. The Court below framed various issues and one of the main issues was as to whether respondent No. 2 was a factory within the meaning of the Act. On a consideration of the various materials on the record, oral and documentary, the Court below came to the conclusion that respondent No. 2 employed only 19 persons for wages and one employee, Prahalad Bhandari was working without any remuneration and he worked during the period in question as an unpaid apprentice. According to the view of the Court below, Prahalad could not be treated to have been 'employed in the press for wages". Excluding his name from the list of persons employed in the respondent press for wages, the Court below came to the conclusion that there were only 19 employees in the Press and therefore, it was not covered by the definition of the word "factory" in the Act. Excluding his name from the list of persons employed in the respondent press for wages, the Court below came to the conclusion that there were only 19 employees in the Press and therefore, it was not covered by the definition of the word "factory" in the Act. It is apparent, therefore, that if this unpaid apprentice Prahalad Bhandari can be included as an employee of the respondent Press, the same will be covered under the definition of the word 'factory' otherwise it will be excluded. 5. The word 'Employee' has been defined in section 2 (9) of the Act to mean "any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of factory...." The definition of 'factory' has been amended by Act 44 of 1966. Before the amendment of the word 'factory' by the aforesaid amending Act, the definition of the word factory was as follows: "factory means any premises inc1uding the precincts thereof whereon twenty or more persons are working or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power or is ordinarily so carried on but does not include a mine subject to the operation of the Indian Mines Act, 1922 or a railway running shed." It was this definition of the word 'factory' which was in force during the period for which the Corporation claimed the employees' contribution from the respondents in as much as the amended provision was enforced from 28.1.1968. After the amendment the word 'persons' is qualified by the following words, namely, are working or were employed for wages'. The amendment is very significant, in as much as after the amendment it was further necessary to prove that the persons were employed for wages, which was not a case before the amendment. It appears that the Court below in view of the amended definition of the word 'factory' has held that the aforesaid Prahalad Bhandari, who was admittedly an unpaid apprentice, would not be included in the number of persons for applying the mischief of the word 'factory' to the case of respondent No. 2 without appreciating the period of claim in question. 6. 6. In view of the provisions referred to above, it is manifest that the Court below has committed an apparent error of law as Prahalad Bhandari, according to the definition of the word 'factory' was certainly liable to be included in the number of persons working in the establishment of respondent No. 2 and, therefore, the premises of the respondent No. 2 will be covered within the meaning of the word 'factory' under section 2 (12) of the Act as it was before the amendment, and the respondents are liable to pay the employees' contribution to the Corporation. I am supported in this view by a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Hans Raj Goel vs. Assistant Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, New Delhi and another1 and a Bench decision of the Mysore High Court in Employees State Insurance Corporation vs. M.A.H. Siddique2. 7. A question, however, will now arise as to what will be the contribution of the employer. Reading the provisions of the Act, namely, section 38, 39, 46, etc., it appears that the liability of a 'factory' for making the contribution is confined with respect to only such class of employees who are covered by the definition of the word "Employee", namely, a person who is employed for wages, and not the unpaid apprentice or the like, as held by a Bench of this Court also in the case of Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co Ltd3. Admittedly, the Court below due to the view of the law that it took has not gone into this question to determine the extent of the liability of the respondents for the employees in their establishment. 8. I would, accordingly, set aside the judgment of the Court below and direct it to examine the case of the appellant on merits. I shall, however, make no order as to costs. Application allowed.