Judgment :- K. GNANAPRAKASAM, J. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated August 30, 1989, passed by the Employees' Insurance Court (Principal District Judge), Tirunelveli, in E.S.I. O.P. No. 4 of 1986. The respondent, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, sent a notice to the appellant on June 17, 1985, informing that the Government has extended the provisions of the Act to other establishments under Section 1(5) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as "the Act"), with effect from May 14, 1978, vide Notification No. 360, dated May 2, 1978, and the appellant's-establishment would also come under the said notification and liable to pay contribution, to which, the appellant herein sent a reply on July 11, 1985, stating that the G.O. Ms. No. 360, dated May 2, 1978, is not applicable to the appellant's-establishment. The appellant-establishment is neither a "shop" nor an "establishment" as described in the said Government order and thereby denied its liability. Further, the respondent sent a notice on March 20, 1986, to the appellant, to which the appellant sent its reply on April 7, 1986. Thereafter, the respondent herein sent a show cause notice on April 29, 1986, calling upon the appellant to pay contribution of Rs. 50, 311.80. As against the same, the appellant filed an application under Section 75 of the Act stating that at no point of time, twenty or more, persons were employed under the appellant's-establishment and it does not come under any of the categories as : (1) Hotels (2) Restaurants (3) Shops (4) Cinemas including theatres (5) Newspaper establishments as defined under Section 2-A of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Central Act 45 of 1955). The Beedi Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1976 (Act 56 of 1976), is a special enactment for the welfare of the beedi workers, which is applicable to the appellant establishment, wherein the welfare of the beedi workers were taken care of and that, therefore, the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, are not applicable to the appellant-establishment.The respondent, in its counter, has stated that by virtue of notification issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O. Ms. No. 360 dated May 2, 1978, the appellant-establishment is covered under the Act. No. 360 dated May 2, 1978, the appellant-establishment is covered under the Act. The Beedi Workers Cess Act, 1976, deals with the beedi workers and the scope of the said Act are different from the scope of the Employees' State Insurance Act. By virtue of section 61 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, even if any other Act provides similar benefit, the Employees' State Insurance Act will prevail. The Employees' Insurance Court, after having taken into consideration all the aspects of the case and the materials placed before it came to the conclusion that the Act is applicable to the appellant-establishment and the appellant is liable to pay the contribution. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal. The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the workers of the appellant establishment are covered under the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, and the premises wherein they are carrying on their work would come under the definition of "industrial premises", which states that "industrial premises" means any place or premises (not being a private dwelling house), including the precincts thereof, in which or in any part of which any industry or manufacturing process connected with the making of beedi or cigar or both is being or is ordinarily, carried on with or without the aid of power. Section 3 of the Act says that, "no employer shall allow to be used any place or premises as an industrial premises unless he holds a valid licence issued under this Act and no such premises shall be used except in accordance with the terms and conditions of such licence. It is, therefore, submitted that the appellant's-establishment is an "industrial premises" and, hence, it cannot be construed as "shop", as furnished in the Government Order, relied upon by the respondent. It is further argued that the beedi and cigar workers are protected by the Beedi Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1976 Per contra, the learned advocate for the respondent has pointed out that the witness examined on the part of the appellant, has deposed that 23 persons were employed in their establishment, which include the accountant, the persons who check the finished beedies, the persons who handed over beedi leaves to the workers and also the driver of the vehicle. The said evidence would clinch the issue that the appellant was employing more than twenty persons and that, therefore, the appellant establishment has got to be held as a "factory" within the definition of Section 2(12)(b) of the Act. Now, the question is whether the employees under the appellant factory would be governed by the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, and the Beedi Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1976, or under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ? The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the employees of the appellant establishment would fall within the definition of "employee" under Section 2(f) of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, for whom the Beedi Workers Welfare Cess Act is applicable. Under the above said Act, cess is collected for the purpose of the Beedi Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1976 (Act 62 of 1976), to take care of the welfare measures of the workers covered under the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 The respondent further pointed that the subject, whether the Employees' State Insurance Act is applicable to beedi factories in and around Madras, has come up for consideration, in batch of writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 9196 to 9199 of 1982, 9201, 9202, 10110 to 10113 of 1982 and eight other writ petitions, before this Court. It has been held in the order passed by this Court," that a reading of Section 61 of the Employees' State Insurance Act shows that the benefits due to the employees protected by the ESI Act is a basic benefit, which cannot be avoided, if the Act could be applicable and only in case a worker gets a benefit under the Employees' State Insurance Act". Based upon the said decision, C. V. GOVARDHAN, J. has dismissed the appeal filed by the employer, viz., Seyadu Beedi Company v. Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, (1999-III-LLJ (Suppl)-128) (Mad). The facts and the principles involved in the batch of writ petitions are squarely applicable to the case on hand and, therefore, I have to necessarily hold that the appellant establishment is coverable under the Employees' State Insurance Act and in the said circumstances, I do not find any good or valid reason to interfere with the findings of the Employees' Insurance Court.In the result, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. But, however, there will be no order as to costs.