JUDGMENT -A.B. PALKAR, J.:---This appeal is filed by the Regional Director of Employees State Insurance Corporation who was original opposite party before the learned Judge of Employees Insurance Court, Bombay, in an application bearing No. 79 of 1976 under the Employees State Insurance Act, which was disposed of by an order dated 29-12-1981. By the impugned order, the learned Judge has held that the Applicant and the other concern namely Bagamal Knitting Industries are one and the same concern and constituted a composite unit and were liable to pay contribution to the Employees State Insurance. However, in the said order the learned Judge has specifically excluded the period between 1-1-1973 to 12-1-1994 holding that the Corporation was entitled to recover contribution for the aforesaid period and this appeal is preferred only to challenge the aforesaid part of the order. 2.In this Court Mr. M.V. Jaykar learned Counsel appeared for the Appellant Corporation. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent however, stated that inspite of repeatedly informing the respondent in writing the respondents are not giving contracting him and giving instructions and therefore, he applied for permission to withdraw his appearance. Accordingly he was allowed to withdraw his appearance. 3.The learned Judge has considered the facts which emerge from the evidence, namely:- 1. That the ownership of the two concerns vested in the Thadani family. For example, Arjandas is a partner of the applicant-company while his brother and his wife are the partners of the other concern. Still further, the wife of the another brother of Arjandas is also a partner of the other concern and they are all staying in one building by name Sunflower Building. 2. That both the concerns are situate in one and the same premises, in one building and in one compound; 3. That there are separate muster-rolls and accounts for the two establishments; 4. That the bonus was paid to all the employees of the two concerns at one and the same rate; 5. That the head officer of the applicant and the market office of the other concerns are situated on the same premises belonging to the applicant, and the other concern is not required to pay any amount towards rent/compensation to the applicant for the use and occupation by it for its market office; 6. That the head officer of the applicant and the market office of the other concerns are situated on the same premises belonging to the applicant, and the other concern is not required to pay any amount towards rent/compensation to the applicant for the use and occupation by it for its market office; 6. That both the establishments used one and the same telephone which is in the name of the applicant and the telephone charges are borne by the applicant alone; 7. That the nature of the activities are identical; 8. That the writer of the account pertaining to both the concerns is common though it has been tried to suggest that the writer of the accounts is different; 9. That the power connections are common and the power-meter is common; and 10. That the applicant produced some evidence to show that some amount is being paid by the other concern to the applicant towards rent for the premises and some amount for the power supply. However, the evidence produced by the applicant is unreliable. The learned Judge has also rightly held that both the concerns constituted one unit and rejected the arguments that the accounts were separate and they were two separate units having no concern with each other. The learned Judge found that the ownership of the premises, finance and control and assistance of one person to other was there in all respects. The premises belong to one family and that the other concern was functioning in some part of the same premises. The documents show that some compensation was being paid for the same and there was some agreement between the firms which were rightly rejected by the learned Judge holding that those documents have been brought into existence later on and even other wise such exchange of letters do not constitute any agreement. These documents were not shown to the Inspector when he visited the premises and this reasoning of the learned Judge appears to be correct and the same is also not challenged by the respondent by filing any cross objection. 4.However, the learned Judge has observed in this later part his of the Judgment that from January 1973 to December 1974, the strength did not exceed 19 and the combined strength of employees was reduced by two employees during the aforesaid period. 4.However, the learned Judge has observed in this later part his of the Judgment that from January 1973 to December 1974, the strength did not exceed 19 and the combined strength of employees was reduced by two employees during the aforesaid period. 5.The learned Counsel for the appellant has taken me through the evidence of all the three witnesses examined in the proceedings before the trial Court. There is absolutely no evidence to support this conclusion of the learned Judge. Even in the evidence adduced by the applicant, there was nothing to show that during this period the strength of employees was reduced to 19 and therefore, the order of the learned Judge excluding the aforesaid period for contribution to the Employees State Insurance by the applicant cannot be justified and to that extent of the order will have to be modified. 6.The appeal is therefore allowed and the learned Judges order impugned in this appeal is modified to the extent that the period from 1-1-1973 to 1-12-1974 is also covered and the applicants are liable to pay contribution for the said period also. The order of the learned Judge that the for the said period the Corporation is not entitled to recover the contribution is hereby set aside. With this partial modification the appeal is allowed . There will be no order as to coasts. Appeal allowed. *****