JUDGMENT : 1. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation has filed this appeal against the order dated July 25, 1984 passed by the Employees Insurance Court, Nasik in Application (EST) No. 2 of 1982. 2. The question arising in this appeal is as to whether the Nasik Panchavati Panjarapole carries on manufacturing process with the heap of power at its establishment. 3. The Respondent filed an application before the trial Court under Sections 75 and 77 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 for a declaration that the Respondent was not liable to pay any amount towards contribution demanded by the Deputy Regional Director of Employees' State Insurance Corporation as demanded by his Letter No. MHR/SRO/ IMS/33-5753 of 1965 dated December 7, 1982. In the said application the Respondent (Original Applicant) contended that the Respondent was not a factory within the meaning of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. 4. The Appellants filed the written statement in response to the said application. The Appellants contended that the Respondent had employed 20 or more persons at its Panjarapole at Nasik and at the material time the Respondent was carrying on manufacturing process with the aid of power. The Appellants in terms contended in the said written statement as under : 1. The original applicant mixed cattle feed with the help of Mixing Cattle Feed Machine of 1.5 H.P. 2. The original applicant had got a chaffing and cutting machine of 3 H.P. capacity for the purpose of chaffing and cutting. 3. The original applicant had got a milk chilling plant of 5 H.P. capacity at its establishment. The original applicant was thus a 'Factory' covered under the Act. 5. The basic question before the trial Court was as to whether the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 was applicable to the original Applicant. It is not disputed and it is not disputable that Act No. 63 of 1948 is applicable to all factories other than seasonal factories. The expression "factory" is defined by Section 2(12) of the Act. The expression "manufacturing" is defined by Section 2(14-AA) of the Act No. 34 of 1948. The definition of "manufacturing process" is set out in Section 2(k) of the Factories Act, 1948 and it is expressly incorporated in Act No. 34 of 1948. Section 2(k) of the Factories Act, 1948 defines the expression "manufacturing process". The expression "manufacturing" is defined by Section 2(14-AA) of the Act No. 34 of 1948. The definition of "manufacturing process" is set out in Section 2(k) of the Factories Act, 1948 and it is expressly incorporated in Act No. 34 of 1948. Section 2(k) of the Factories Act, 1948 defines the expression "manufacturing process". It is of considerable significance that category (vi) was incorporated in the said definition by amending Act 94 of 1976. If it can be shown that the chilling plant of the original applicant amounted to 'cold storage' in all probability the original applicant shall be liable to be considered as a factory duly covered under the said Act. 6. The expression 'cold storage' has a special meaning. Mere refrigerator by itself without anything more cannot be considered as cold storage. It is unfortunate that the trial Court has not recorded its finding from this point of view land has not addressed itself to the question as to whether the Respondent in this appeal was storing articles in "cold storage" popularly so-called and as to whether milk chilling process followed by the original applicant for which the original applicant had a milk chilling plant of 5 H.P. capacity was covered by Section 2(k)(vi) of the Act. It is also unfortunate that the learned trial Judge has not recorded any finding on the two defences raised by the applicant in its written statement i.e. defence pertaining to mixing cattle feed and defence pertaining to chaffing and cutting machine of 1.5 H.P. capacity and 3 H.P. capacity respectively. In this view of the matter it is absolutely necessary to remand the proceedings to the trial Court for rehearing of the application in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to both parties to lead further evidence. 7. The appeal is allowed. The order passed by the trial Court allowing the application of the Respondent which is subject-matter of this appeal is set aside and the proceedings are remanded to the trial Court for rehearing after giving reasonable opportunity to both sides to lead additional evidence. It shall be open to the Appellants to lead evidence of a manufacturer in the line or an expert engineer or any other witness to show that the milk chilling plant was liable to be considered as cold storage within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the said Act. It shall be open to the Appellants to lead evidence of a manufacturer in the line or an expert engineer or any other witness to show that the milk chilling plant was liable to be considered as cold storage within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the said Act. It shall also be open to both the parties to lead such other evidence in the matter as deemed fit. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. 9. The Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side, Bombay, is directed to return the record to the trial Court expeditiously and latest within one week from today. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the proceedings on remand expeditiously and latest by June 30, 1995.