( 1 ) THE appellants have challenged in this appeal the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Employees State Insurance Court in dispute No. 17 of 1970. ( 2 ) FEW undisputed facts necessary for a decision of this appeal may be narrated briefly as follows: The appellant concern is engaged in manufacture of paints, varnishes and allied products. It was called upon by the esi Corporation the respondent-to take steps for registration of its employees and make arrangements for payment of the employer's special contribution with effect from 26-1-1968 for 1he three next following quarters and also for a subsequent period upto the date of the application. The appellant represented to the Corporation that durig the relevant period there were only 19 employees in the establishment and a General manager had been appointed on 18-1- 1968 on a salary of Rs. 600 p. m. and also a sales-man and therefore both ot them worked outside the factory and as such the establishment was not a 'factory' within the dcrinition of the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 (hereinafter read, to as the Act ). The ESI Corporation did not accept the contention of the appellant and m view of that the appellant raised a dispute in the ESI Court. the Accountant of the appellant establishment gave statement on the various facts which goes to show that the General Manager was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 600 and conveyance allownce of rs 1500 per month and that there weie twenty persons in the establishment including the General Manager. ( 3 ) THE appellant contended before the ESI Court that the General manager could not be regarded as a person employed in the establishment for wages and therefore the number of such persons that were working in the es abliehmcnt during the relevant period was only 19 and hence the definitn of 'factory' in S 2 (12) of the Act was not attracted and therefore the appellant was not liable to pay contribution as demanded by the respondent Corporation. ( 4 ) THE ESI Court held that though the General Manager was drawing a salary of Rs. 600 and conveyance allowance of Rs. ( 4 ) THE ESI Court held that though the General Manager was drawing a salary of Rs. 600 and conveyance allowance of Rs. 150 p. m. , he must be regarded as a person who had everything to do with that part of the establishment where the manufacturing process was being carried out and therefore he was to be included amongst the other workers of the establishment and as such the number became 20 and therefore the appellant establishment was a 'factory' falling withm the purview of the Act. ( 5 ) SRI G. R. Doreswamy, appearing on behalf of the appellant, strenuously argued that S. 2 (9) of the Act provides definition of an 'employee' and a perusal of that definition shows that any person employed for wages, but whose wages exceed Rs. 500 per month (excluding remuneration for overtime work) does not become an 'employee' and hence the general Manager who was drawing a basic salary of Rs. 600 per month could not be regarded as an "employee' and as such he could not be included amongst the persons employed for wages by the appellant establishment so as to make up the number of such persons to twenty. ( 6 ) THIS contention of Sri Doreswamy is based on the premises that the twenty or more persons mentioned in S. 2 (12) of the Act should all be 'ernployees' as defined in S. 2 (9) of the Act. We aie unable to read such a meaning in the provisions of S. 2 (12 ). S. 2 (12) of the Act reads as follows :" 'factory' means any premises including 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 carrried on but does not include a mine subject to the operation of the Indian Mines Act, 1923 (IV of 1923) or a railway runningshed. "a plain reading of this section makes it manifest that it is necessary to satisfy two ingredients before an establishment is characterised as a 'factory'. "a plain reading of this section makes it manifest that it is necessary to satisfy two ingredients before an establishment is characterised as a 'factory'. Those ingredients are (1) that 20 or more persons work in an establishment for wages: (2) a manufacturing process is being carried on in any part of it with the and of power or is ordinarily so carried on but does not include a mine subject to the operation of the Indian Mines Act. We do not see any reason to incorporate 'employees' properly so called in the Act within the definition mentioned above. All the 20 or more persons or any of them who are employed for wages may or may not be employees within the meaning of the definition found in S. 2 (9) of the act. If any of them happen to be employees within the meaning of S. 2 (9) of the Act they would be entitled to certain benefits provided by the other provisions of the Act. Those workers who are employed for wages by the establishment and do not fall within the definition of an 'employee' as provided in S. 2 (9) of the Act do not got any such benefits provided by the act for an employee. Therefore in order to compute the 20 persons mentioned in S. 2 (12) of the Act it is not necessary that all those 20 persons should be 'employees' properly so called by the Act. We. therefore, do not agree with this contention put forward by Sri Doreswamy. ( 7 ) SAME is the view expressed by Chandrachud, J. in Bank Silver co. , Bomboy v. Employes State Insurance Corpn. , AIR. 1965 Bom. 111' it is observed as follows in paragraph 8 of the said decision:" If twenty or more persons work in an establishment and if a manufacturing process is being carried on in any part thereof, the place would be a factory. The further question which would then arise is whether the benefits conferred by the Act can be availed of by all the persons who work in the factory. In order to determine that question it would be necessary to consider each one of the provisions relating to the various benefits. The further question which would then arise is whether the benefits conferred by the Act can be availed of by all the persons who work in the factory. In order to determine that question it would be necessary to consider each one of the provisions relating to the various benefits. If the benefits can be availed of only by the employees properly so called, the proprietors of the astablishment or the partners of the firm which owns the establishment would not be entitled to the benefits, because they are not 'employees'. That is, however, no reason why the benefits conferred by the Act cannot be given to employees who work in the establishment in Which twenty or more persons are, in fact, working. In other words, the mere circumstance that the Act applies to an establishment would not necessarily mean that all the benefits conferied by the Act could b. c given to each and every person working in that establishment. The act would apply to an establishment because twenty or more persons work therein and yet the benefits conferred by the Act could be given to only such persons who are employees within the meaning of the act. " ( 8 ) WE respectfully agree with the above said decision. It is nextly clear that the General Manager had in his charge overall management of the whole establishment. His management was not restricted to any portion of the establishment. That is not the contention of the appellant. That means that the General Manager was also in charge of the working of that part of the establishment where the manufacturing process was being carried on. 8. In view of the foregoing reasons, we hold that it has been satisfactorily established that the appellant was a 'factory' within the provisions of the said act and therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the ESI court is in order. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal. No order as to costs. ( 9 ) SRI Doreswamy appearing on behalf of the appellant prayed that a period of three months' time may be granted for payment of the contribution as the factory is just trying to stand on its own legs. Mr. M. C. Ranganna appearing on behalf of the respondent agreed that a period of three months' time may be granted. We, therefore, order accordingly. --- *** --- .