Judgment :- NAINAR SUNDARAM, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in C.M.A. No. 95 of 1991. That Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was one preferred under S. 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act 34 of 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Sub-S. (2) of S. 82 of the Act states, an appeal shall he to the High Court from an order of an Employees Insurance Court, if it involves a substantial question of law. Two contentions were raised before the learned single Judge, who heard and disposed of the civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The first contention is that the two units of the appellant are separate and independent and they cannot be conglomerated for the purpose of arriving at employment strength, so as to bring it as a whole within the definition of Factory under S. 2(12) of the Act. The learned single Judge found that the entire work is one single process, though the work is done in two different premises. The learned single Judge adverted to the evidence of P.W. 1 that it is only one manufacturing unit. The learned single Judge, found no warrant to follow the pronouncement of a Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in S.K. Biswas v. Employees State Insurance Corporation and others 1979 54 FJR 213. stantial q , on which reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant. There was also a contention that there was lack of adequate opportunity to the appellant to present its case before the respondent. The learned single Judge found no substance in it after analysing the factual features on this question. As a result, the learned single Judge dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Mr. P. Ibrahim Kalifulla, learned counsel for the appellant, would first submit that there are two units, which must be held to be separate and independent and there could not be a clubbing of them so as to arrive at the employment strength. As a result, the learned single Judge dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Mr. P. Ibrahim Kalifulla, learned counsel for the appellant, would first submit that there are two units, which must be held to be separate and independent and there could not be a clubbing of them so as to arrive at the employment strength. Dealing with a similar contention arising under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act XIX of 1952, a Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Nainar Sundaram, J.) has been a party, in The Management of Antiseptic (Journal) Madras v. Gangadharan and another 1985 I MLJ 1, after adverting to the ratio of the Supreme Court in Associated Cement Company v. Their Workmen AIR 1960 SC 56 “The real purpose of the test must be to find out the true relation between the parts, branches, units, etc., and if in their true relation they constitute one inserted whole, then it must beheld that the establishment is one. But, on the contrary, if they do not constitute one integrated whole, then each unit must be held to be independent and a separate one.” The finding of the learned single Judge is: Though there are different premises, the work carried on is a single manufacturing process, so as to come within the definition of factory. We have not found a warrant to take a different view. This is purely a factual question. We do not find a warrant to follow the pronouncement of the Bench of the High Court of Calcutta referred to above. The facts of the present case being what they are, the ratio of the Bench of this Court in the Management of Antiseptic (Journal) Madras v. A. Gangadharan and another 1985 I MLJ 1 appropriately applies. 3. Mr. P. Ibrahim Kalifulla, learned counsel for the appellant, would then contend that there was denial of adequate opportunity to his client before the respondent passed the order. This contention has been dealt with by the learned single Judge pointing out the relevant factual features. We are not persuaded to express a different view on this question also. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.