Judgment :- K. GNANAPRAKASAM, J. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation has preferred the present appeal against the order dated April 12, 1989, passed by the E.S.I. Court (First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras) in E.S.I.O.P. No. 35 of 1986. The respondent viz., Madras Cricket Club has been established to provide for its members pastimes and games like cricket, hockey, lawn-tennis, etc. It was not established with any profit motive. Whatever amount collected by way of subscriptions or otherwise was applied solely towards the promotion of objects of the club and no portion of it was paid or transferred by way of dividend, bonus or otherwise to the members of the club. In order to provide refreshment to the members of the club during sports and games, the club was having the canteen inside the premises. The canteen is not open to the public, but restricted to the members of the club. The canteen or the work done by the employees of any canteen was only incidental to the primary objects for which the club is constituted, viz., for providing recreation and entertainment purposes. About 44 to 47 persons are employed in the canteen. The appellant herein, by notice dated March 25, 1985, informed the respondent that the club comes under the Employees' State Insurance Act with effect from January 1, 1985, for which the respondent sent a reply on May 2, 1985. After exchange of notices, the appellant issued a notice on December 27, 1985, in Form No. C-18 calling upon the respondent to pay Rs. 54, 295 as contribution for the period from January 1, 1985 to September 30, 1985. The respondent sent a reply on January 1, 1986, and denied its liability. Thereafter, the appellant passed an order under Section 45-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act on March 25, 1986, calling upon the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 54, 295.24 as contribution for the period from January 1, 1985 to September 30, 1985. The respondent sent a reply on January 1, 1986, and denied its liability. Thereafter, the appellant passed an order under Section 45-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act on March 25, 1986, calling upon the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 54, 295.24 as contribution for the period from January 1, 1985 to September 30, 1985. As against the same, the respondent filed an application under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act before the Employees' Insurance Court, Madras, in E.S.I.O.P. No. 35 of 1986.The appellant, in its written statement, has stated that as per the preliminary inspection conducted by the Inspector of the appellant on February 7, 1985 and February 15, 1985, it was ascertained that 98 persons were employed for wages in the respondent's establishment. The club has catering department, including kitchen, using power for preparation and preservation of food items with 32 employees as their staff. The club has also shop which sells sports articles, etc. Section 2(12) of the Employees' State Insurance Act defines the term "factory" which runs as follows : "2(12) 'factory' means any premises including the precincts thereof - (a) wherein ten 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, or (b) 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 manufacturing process is being carried on without the aid of power or is ordinarily so carried on ....." It is further stated that the catering department manufactures food and beverages with the aid of power and employing 20 or more persons and, therefore, it will be covered under Section 2(12)(b) of the Employees' State Insurance Act. "Employee" is defined under Section 2(9). "Employee" is defined under Section 2(9). The Government of Tamil Nadu issued a Notification No. 1088, dated December 22, 1976, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 1(5) of the Employees' State Insurance Act to which any premises including the precincts thereof, wherein ten or more persons are/were employed for wages on any day of the preceding 12 months and in any part of which manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power, or is ordinarily carried on, will be covered as an establishment under the said Section of the Act, with effect from January 16, 1977. The club and in particular, the catering department of the club consisting of canteen, stores, etc. wherein 20 or more persons have been employed for wages and using power for manufacturing process, will be covered under Section 2(12) of the Act, from the date on which the club was in existence.The appellant justified the contribution demanded and as the same was not complied by the respondent, an order under Section 45-A of the Act was passed and stated that the respondent is liable to pay the contribution. The Employees' Insurance Court, after having taken into consideration all the aspects of the case, came to the conclusion that 47 workers are employed in the canteen and stores, and it has got electricity power for use and thereby held that the respondent is liable to pay the contribution. But, at the same time reduced the contribution only in respect of 47 workers who are employed in the canteen. Aggrieved by the said order the Employees' State Insurance Corporation has filed the present appeal. The learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that one Santhosh Kumar, Manager of the Club, was examined as P.W. 1 and he himself has admitted that there are 97 persons employed in the club and out of whom, 40 persons are working in the canteen. Further, he has stated that the canteen is not run with any profit motive nor it was thrown open to the public, it is being established and conducted only to cater to the needs of the members of the club. But, the Employees' State Insurance Act is applicable to all the hotels/canteens. The canteen in question has been preparing several items of food-stuff and supplying its members. But, the Employees' State Insurance Act is applicable to all the hotels/canteens. The canteen in question has been preparing several items of food-stuff and supplying its members. Even assuming without admitting that the canteen is not thrown open to the public, the workers employed in the canteen are paid, in and out of the income from the canteen. After meeting the expenses of provisions, the wages to the workers, electricity bill and other expenses incidental in running the canteen are met only in and out of the income derived from the canteen. It may run in profit or in loss, which is immaterial. But, it is not the case of the respondent, that all the expenses incurred in running the canteen are not in and out of the club subscription amount. That, therefore, the canteen is making earnings, and, in and out of the said earnings, wages of the workers are paid, and that, therefore, the canteen squarely falls within the definition of "factory" as defined under Section 2(12) of the Act and the "employees" came within the definition of Section 2(9) of the Act.In Royal Talkies, Hyderabad v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, (1978-II-LLJ-390), the Supreme Court was considering the very statute in question and how it has to be interpreted. In paragraph 20, it was held thus at p. 396 : "Shri Chitale tried to convince us that on a minute dissection of the various clauses of the provisions it was possible to exclude canteen employees and cycle-stand attendants. May be, punctilious sense of grammar and minute precision of language may sometimes lend unwitting support to narrow interpretation. But, language is handmaid, not mistress. MAXWELL and FOWLER move along different streets, sometimes. When, as in Section 2(9) of the Act, the definition has been cast deliberately in the widest terms and the draftsman has endeavoured to cover every possibility so as not to exclude even distant categories of men employed either in the primary work or cognate activities, it will defeat the object of the statute to truncate its semantic sweep and throw out of its ambit those who obviously are within the benign contemplation of the Act. Salvationary effort, when the welfare of the weaker sections of society is the statutory object and is faced with stultifying effect, is permissible judicial exercise." In the case of Madras Government Servants Co-operative Society Limited, Madras v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, represented by its Regional Director, Madras, (1997-I-LLJ-606), the Division Bench of our Court held at p. 612 : "24. The definition of 'shop' which is meant as a house or building where goods are made or prepared for sale and sold, has now undergone a great change. In the present legal sense, it is not necessary that there should be building or land for conducting a shop, nor is it necessary that in the premises, there should be buying or selling. Once an ordinary occupation is carried on, if there is a systematic economic or commercial activity, that will be sufficient to bring that place within its sphere." The Apex Court in the case of Andhra University v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner of Andhra Pradesh, (1986-I-LLJ-155)(SC), held that the employees of the department of publications and press run by the universities, also come under the definition of factory. The same view was also upheld in the case of Osmania University v. Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, wherein the Supreme Court held "the employees working in the department of publication and press of Osmania University are considered as employees, as defined under Section 2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act and held that the Act is applicable to the said employees." It is, therefore, submitted that the other workers apart from the workers employed in the canteen, are also covered under the Act. On the contrary, the learned Advocate for the respondent has submitted that the very extension of the Employees' State Insurance Act to the employees of the canteen itself is not proper. Further, the contention of the appellant that all the employees are covered under the Act and, therefore, the respondent is liable to pay the contribution is not sustainable. To support and sustain his submission, he relied upon the decision of Bangalore Club v. Regional Director, ESIC, (1994-II-LLJ-780), wherein the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held at p. 784 : "9. To support and sustain his submission, he relied upon the decision of Bangalore Club v. Regional Director, ESIC, (1994-II-LLJ-780), wherein the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held at p. 784 : "9. Even though the catering section of the club may not be called as a 'factory' within the meaning of that term as it is ordinarily understood, the definition of 'manufacturing process' in the Factories Act is wide enough to cover the preparation of foodstuffs and the fact that the restaurant section of the club is run only for the benefit of its members with no profit motive will not take it out of the purview of the Act.But, however it was further held at p. 785 :" 10. The activities of the club in respect of the other sections cannot be said to be incidental to the work in relation to the catering section. It may be that running the catering section is incidental to the other activities of the club merely because the other activities of the club which are not incidental to its activity of running the catering section are carried on in the same compound where the catering section is also located, it cannot be said that the persons employed in those sections of the club, are employed in the catering section of the factory. Otherwise it may lead to absurd results. If the press attached to a university is held to be a factory for purposes of the Act, it cannot be held that the teaching staff would become employees of factory. Otherwise it may lead to absurd results. If the press attached to a university is held to be a factory for purposes of the Act, it cannot be held that the teaching staff would become employees of factory. Therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that only the persons working in the kitchen section and the other persons connected thereto, all of whom could be called as 'employees of the catering section of the appellant club' would come within the meaning of the 'employee' as defined in the Act and they are liable to be covered under the provisions of the Act and the other employees who are working in the other sections of the club, who have nothing to do with the catering section do not come within the purview of that word, as defined in the Act and they are not liable to be covered under the provisions of the Act has to be upheld." The Employees' Insurance Court confirmed the demand of contribution made by the appellant only in respect of the workers employed in the canteen and in respect of the employees employed in the club, the matter was left open to the parties to challenge the same in separate proceedings.I also concur with the said finding in view of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Bangalore Club v. Regional Director, ESIC, (supra). Hence, I do not find any good or valid reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. In the result, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. But, however, there will be no order as to costs.