JUDGMENT R.R. Rastogi, J. - This is an appeal under S. 82, Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, hereafter referred to as 'the Act' and is directed against the order made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, dismissing the appellant's application made under Sections 75 (g) and 77 of the Act. 2. The plaintiff-appellant. Mls. Noorullah Gazanfarullah was a registered partnership firm. It held a licence for supply of potable water within the limits of Aligarh Municipal Board. It.' business premises called "Aligarh Water Works" was situated at Udai Singer Road, in the town of Aligarh and its case was that these premises consisted of two separate establishments though adjoining each other. In one establishment there were tube-wells which were meant for pumping water and in the other establishment there was its office. These two establishments were enclosed within separate boundary walls. The total number of employees in the two establishments was 65 at the relevant time and the Employees State Insurance Corporation by its letter dated 22-12-1971 required the applicant to furnish information in regard to its employees in form C-1. Evidently that was for the purpose of determining whether the applicant's establishment comes within the definition of a factory and whether the provisions of the Act are applicable to it. In response to that letter the applicant furnished the information. According to it the establishment having the tube-wells employed less than 20 persons and, therefore, it did not fall within the definition of a factory and further its office establishment cannot be treated as a part of the other establishment because there was no manufacturing process being carried on in that establishment and the persons employed there were only bill clerks, cashiers, typists, accountants etc. and the provisions of the Act were not applicable to them. Despite this information the Employees State Insurance Authorities required the applicant to furnish the necessary return and hence the applicant filed an application for declaration that its establishment is not covered by the provisions of the Act and the employees working therein are not liable to be insured under the Act. 3. The respondent-opposite party, the Employees State Insurance Corporation, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur, pleaded, inter alia, that the applicant's establishment was covered by the provisions of the Act and E. S. I. dues were payable, both in regard to E. S. C. and E. C. 4. 3. The respondent-opposite party, the Employees State Insurance Corporation, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur, pleaded, inter alia, that the applicant's establishment was covered by the provisions of the Act and E. S. I. dues were payable, both in regard to E. S. C. and E. C. 4. The Employees State Insurance Court, Aligarh, held that alleged two separate establishments of the applicant constituted one unit, inasmuch as, there is functional unity in respect thereof, that the employees of the applicant are covered by the definition of the expression "employee" as given in S. 2 (9) of the Act and lastly that the applicant's establishment is factory within the meaning given to that expression in Section 2 (12). On these findings the application has been dismissed with costs. Aggrieved the applicant has come up in appeal to this Court. 5. The main submission made before us on behalf of the appellant by its learned counsel, Sri B. C. Dey, was that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the appellant's establishment because neither it is a "factory" nor are its workers "employees" within the definition of these two expressions given in the Act and, therefore, the appellant was not under any obligation to comply with the provisions of this Act. It was emphasised that the main establishment of the appellant consists of two separate parts situated at Udai Singh Road. In one part there are certain tube-wells and in the other part there is office establishment. These two parts are enclosed by separate boundary walls and they do not form one establishment. The applicant has got some other pumping stations as well and that the total strength of the workers working in the tube-well establishment and in the pumping stations is admittedly less than 20. The sum and substance of the contention of the learned counsel is that the office establishment cannot be combined with the establishment having tube-wells and pumping stations for the purposes of the application of this Act. 6. After hearing learned counsel we are not inclined to agree with what has been contended by Sri B. C. Dey, learned counsel for the applicant. 6. After hearing learned counsel we are not inclined to agree with what has been contended by Sri B. C. Dey, learned counsel for the applicant. The E. S. I. Act, 1948, is a piece of social security enactment and it has been enacted "to provide for certain benefit to employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and to make provision for certain other matters in relation thereto." Sub-sec. (2) of Section 1 says that it extends to the whole of India and sub-section (4) says that it shall apply, in the first instance, to all factories including factories belonging to the Government other than seasonal factories. In other words if it is found that the appellant's establishment amounts to 'a factory, it would be covered by the provisions of this Act because it was not a seasonal factory. The applicant had been given a licence to supply drinking water within the limits of Municipal Board, Aligarh. This was not a seasonal affair. 7. We have now first to see as to whether the appellant's establishment it a "factory" and secondly whether the workers employed therein are "employees" within the meaning of this Act. Section 2 (12) defines "factory" to mean "any premises including the precincts thereof whereon twenty or more persons are employed or were employed for wages 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 Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952), or a railway running shed." The expressions "manufacturing process" and "power" shall have the meaning respectively assigned to them in the Factories Act, 1948. 8. The definition of "factory" as contained in S. 2 (m) of the Factories Act 1948 is almost the same as given in Section 2 (12) of the Act except for the difference that therein the number of workers is required to be ten or more. 9. "Manufacturing process" as defined in Section 2 (k) includes pumping of water. 8. The definition of "factory" as contained in S. 2 (m) of the Factories Act 1948 is almost the same as given in Section 2 (12) of the Act except for the difference that therein the number of workers is required to be ten or more. 9. "Manufacturing process" as defined in Section 2 (k) includes pumping of water. An analysis of this definition would show that the factory should consist of any premises including precincts thereof; in any part of such premises including precincts a manufacturing process is being carried on or is ordinarily so carried on with the aid of power: the number of persons employed should be twenty or more. A mine subject to the operation of the Mines Act, 1952, or a railway running shed are not included in the definition of 'factory'. The definition of 'manufacturing process' as given in S. 2 (k) of the Factories Act is exhaustive. This definition is independent of the power by the aid of which the process is carried on. However, for the purpose of Section 2 (12) manufacturing process should be carried on with the aid of power. "Power" means "electrical energy or any other form of energy which is mechanically transmitted". It does not include power generated by human or animal agency. 10. The definition of the expression "employees" may also be seen. However, for the purpose of Section 2 (12) manufacturing process should be carried on with the aid of power. "Power" means "electrical energy or any other form of energy which is mechanically transmitted". It does not include power generated by human or animal agency. 10. The definition of the expression "employees" may also be seen. it is contained in S. 2 (9) of the Act and reads : "(9) "employee" means any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory of establishment to which this Act applies and; (i) who is directly employed by the principal employer on any work of, or incidental or preliminary to or connected with the work of, the factory or establishment whether such work is done by the employee in the factory or establishment or elsewhere; or (ii) who is employed by or through an immediate employer on the premises of the factory or establishment or under the supervision of the principal employer or his agent on work which is ordinarily part of the work of the factory or establishment or which is preliminary to the work carried on in or incidental to the purpose of the factory or establishment; or (iii) whose services are temporarily lent or let on hire to the principal employer by the person with whom the person whose services are so lent or let on hire has entered into a contract of service; and includes any person employed for wages on any work connected with the administration of the factory or establishment or any part, department or branch thereof or with the purchase of raw materials for, or the distribution or sale of the products of, the factory or establishment; but does not include (a) any member of the Indian naval, military or air forces: or (b) any person so employed whose wages excluding remuneration for overtime work exceed one thousand rupees a month : provided that an employee whose wages excluding remuneration for overtime work exceed one thousand rupees a month at any time after and not before the beginning of the contribution period, shall continue to be an employee until the end of that period." It would be seen that the scope of the definition of the word "employee" is very wide and comprehensive. There are several categories of the employees but in the present case we are concerned with category 1 only. Under this category employment must be for wages and, it. should be in an establishment or factory in or in connection with the work of a factory or establishment including any work connected with the administration, purchase of raw materials or the distribution or sale of the products of a factory or establishment. In other words in the present case even if the establishment having the pumping sets and tube-wells and the establishment having the administrative offices dare treated as separate units, the employees working in both of them will be .covered by the definition of this expression occurring in this sub-section. Thus, what remains for consideration is as to whether the office establishment where of course no manufacturing process is being carried on can be treated as a part of the establishment where tube wells are existing and where admittedly manufacturing process is being carried on. In our opinion the answer to this question would depend on a consideration of the following aspects; firstly whether there is any geographical or physical unity in the two premises: secondly whether there is unity of ownership or occupation of the two premises; thirdly whether there is any unity of employment in the sense that the employees of the two premises are engaged either by the principal employer or by him through the immediate employer and lastly whether there is unity in the work carried on in the factory premises and the office establishment, In the present case it is not disputed that there is unity of ownership of these two establishments. There is geographical and physical unity as well and the mere fact that the two establishments are separated by a boundary wall does not make much of difference. There is unity of employment in the two sections, inasmuch as the workers in both the sections are employed by the same employer. We would say that there is unity in the work as well as the functioning of the pumping set will become useless unless the water is distributed to the consumers. In order to carry out this latter purpose there would be laying of pipes, installation of connections and metres, periodical reading of the metres, preparation of bills and the realisation of the dues. In order to carry out this latter purpose there would be laying of pipes, installation of connections and metres, periodical reading of the metres, preparation of bills and the realisation of the dues. This establishment is, therefore, clearly ancillary to the pumping section. In other words it would have to be treated as a part of that section where manufacturing process with the aid of power is carried on. Thus, there is not only functional unity between the two premises but in our opinion there is also unity of ownership, unity of employment and unity of work. 11. In Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation, Ltd. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation, AIR 1961 Cal 248 ., the appellant corporation carried on the business of generating and supplying electrical energy and for that purpose it had three power houses or generating stations and 23 sub-stations and certain ancillary establishments. The appellant objected to the levy of the special contribution and eventually filed an application before the Special Tribunal praying for a declaration that it was not liable to pay any contribution at all, or at any rate, in respect of the employees at the sub-stations and ancillary establishments each of which individually employed less than 20 persons. It was held that having regard to the admitted fact that the three power houses or generating stations were 'factories' within the meaning of the statute and having regard to the relation of the different substations and other ancillary establishments, the employees there in were 'employees' within the meaning of the statute and the said sub-stations and 'ancillary establishments also were factories within S. 2(12) of the Act read with S. 2 (k) of the Factories Act. 12. Our attention was also invited by Sri B. N. Asthana, learned counsel for the respondent to a decision of the Supreme Court in Nagpur Electric Light & Power Co. Ltd. v. F. S. I. Corporation, AIR 1967 SC 1364 . 12. Our attention was also invited by Sri B. N. Asthana, learned counsel for the respondent to a decision of the Supreme Court in Nagpur Electric Light & Power Co. Ltd. v. F. S. I. Corporation, AIR 1967 SC 1364 . The view taken was that "where the company maintains one establishment for ifs factory, the factory does the work of transforming and transmitting electrical energy, all employees, clerical or otherwise including administrative staff, are employed in connection with the work of the factory and none of them is employed in any separate establishment unconnected with the work of the factory, all workers of disputed categories, whether they work in the factory or elsewhere, are employees within the meaning of S. 2 (9) (i) of the Act," it was observed that a clerk may not be engaged in manual labour but a person doing non-manual work can be an employee within the meaning of S. 2 (9) (i) if he is employed in connection with work of the factory. If some of the employees work outside the factory, but their duties are connected with the work of the factory, they are also employees within the meaning of S. 2 (9) (i). An electricity supply company has sub-stations which are not independent factories but the persons attending to work at such stations are directly connected with the work of the factory and are employees within this provision. 13. We may refer to a decision of the Bombay High Court in this behalf in the case of Employees State Insurance Corporation, Bombay v. Raman, (1957) 1 Lab LJ 267 (Bom). with a view to bring out the distinguishing feature. In that case a company had a factory and an administrative office. both situated within the same compound. It was found that the work of the factory began with the collection of raw materials and ended with the production of finished articles and the work of selling the products was not connected with the work of the factory and was handled by the administrative office. The factory and the administrative office maintained separate muster and wage rolls and separate accounts. In these circumstances the view taken was that the clerks employed in the administrative office were not employees within the meaning of S. 2 (9). 14. The factory and the administrative office maintained separate muster and wage rolls and separate accounts. In these circumstances the view taken was that the clerks employed in the administrative office were not employees within the meaning of S. 2 (9). 14. In the present case the company has not only one establishment though in two separate premises, but, the work carried out by the administrative office is connected with the work of the pumping stations. The employees in the two sections are engaged by one employer. It is not the case of the appellant that separate muster rolls and wage registers are maintained. On the other hand,11 DW 1, Hari Shanker Chitranshi stated that he found only one pay bill and that there were sixty five employees., The number of employees as given out by the appellant was much less. Eventually there is only one muster roll and one wage register. Thus, there is complete unity of functions, ownership, employment and work in the two alleged separate establishments of the applicant. 15. Our attention was invited by the learned counsel for the appellant to a single Judge decision of the Madras High Court in Mettur B. Ltd. v. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation of India, 1974 Lab IC 283. in which the view taken was that integral nexus of administrative employees of a factory would not automatically make them employees in the factory so as to attract the provisions of the Act without reference to the prescribed prerequisites. In our opinion on the facts found in the present case that decision is distinguishable and integral nexus of the relevant aspects having been established, the appellant's establishment was rightly treated as a "factory" within the meaning of j S. 2 (12) of the Act and the workers working in this establishment as "employees" under S. 2 (9) of the Act. 16. Th appeal hence fails and is dismissed with costs.