V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Employees Insurance Court-cum- industrial Tribunal (E. I. Court), Hyderabad, in e. I. Case No. 9 of 1989, dated 29-7-1993 whereby and whereunder the learned E. I. Court dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 75 of the employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (fore brevity the Act ). ( 2 ) THE facts are in a narrow compass. The appellant-Indian Airlines herein has three Divisions, namely Engineering complex at Begumpet, Central Training establishment at Balanagar and Booking office at Saifabad in Hyderabad. The Indian airlines has been maintaining these divisions by engaging a contractor. However, they obtained licence under factories Act, 1948 only for the Engineering complex at Begumpet treating the said unit as factory area. The other two units are treated as non-factory area. It is the admitted case that since 1952 onwards the Indian airlines is paying ESI contributions only in respect of Engineering Complex at begumpet. On 20-6-1984, the ESI corporation, Hyderabad, issued a notice covering the period from 1-7-1978 to 31-3-1983 demanding the payment of ESI contributions for the entire period for all the units. Assailing the same, the appellant approached the learned Industrial Tribunal contending that the non-factory units are not covered by the provisions of the Act. ( 3 ) THE appellant examined two witnesses, namely P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-49. Whereas the ESI corporation examined R. W. 1 and R. W. 2 and marked Exs. R-1 to R-5. On consideration and documentary evidence, the learned Industrial Tribunal held that the factory area of Indian Airlines is covered by the Act and that the claim made by the corporation is valid. ( 4 ) IN this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant Ms. Uma Devi, representing sri K. Srinivasa Murthy, made two submissions. First, the Central Training establishment and the Booking Office being non-factory area, for which no licence is obtained under the Factories Act, are not covered by the Act. Secondly, the authorities have committed an error in calculating the esi contributions at 7% on the entire amount of expenditure incurred for maintenance charges rather than the amount of wages paid to the maintenance works i. e. , labour component of the expenditure. Secondly, the authorities have committed an error in calculating the esi contributions at 7% on the entire amount of expenditure incurred for maintenance charges rather than the amount of wages paid to the maintenance works i. e. , labour component of the expenditure. ( 5 ) SRI B. G. Ravinder Reddy, learned standing counsel for the ESI Corporation, per contra, placed reliance on Hyderabad asbestos Cement Pro v. Employees Ins. Court and would submit that all the establishments/units/ Divisions situated within the precincts of the factory are covered by the provisions of the Act, and therefore, whether or not they are engaged in manufacturing process, they are covered by the provisions of the Act. ( 6 ) THE background of the case and the rival submissions would throw up two points for consideration, namely (1) whether the central Training Establishment and the booking Office of India Airlines falling part of non-factory area are covered by the provisions of Employees State Insurance act, 1948; and (2) whether the amount of contributions demanded from the Indian airlines was calculated in accordance with the provisions of-the said Act and the employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950. ( 7 ) AT the outset, it would be superfluous to mention that all orders passed under section 75 of the Act by the Labour Court or the competent E. I. Court are not maintainable to appeal under Section 82 (2) of the Act. According to the said provision, an appeal shall lie to this Court only from an order if it involves substantial question of law. Whether non-factory area of an establishment is covered by the provisions of the Act, is indeed, a substantial question of law, and therefore, this Court is not inclined to consider the other question as to the correctness of the method and the manner of calculating the ESI contributions payable - if it is in fact, payable; by the appellant herein. ( 8 ) THE relevant provisions of law, which need to be noticed, are Clauses (12), (14-AA) of Section 2 and Sections 38 and 39 of the Act. ( 8 ) THE relevant provisions of law, which need to be noticed, are Clauses (12), (14-AA) of Section 2 and Sections 38 and 39 of the Act. Clauses (12) and (14-AA) defining the terms "factory" and "manufacturing process" read as under: [ (12) "factory" means any premises including the precincts thereof (A) whereon 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 a manufacturing process is being carried on without the aid or power or is ordinarily so carried on, but does not include a mine subject to the operation of the Mines Act, 1952 (Act No. 35 of 1952) or a railway running shed;) [ (14-AA) "manufacturing process" shall have the meaning assigned to it in the factories Act, 1948 (Act No. 63 of 1948);] ( 9 ) SECTION 38 contains the declaration that all employees of any factory or an establishment to which Employees State insurance Act applies shall be insured in the manner provided by the Act and Section 39 deals with the contributions to be made by the employees, which shall be payable by the employer towards insurance. ( 10 ) SECTION 2 (14-AA) only incorporates the definition of manufacturing process as it appears in the Factories Act, 1948. There is no dispute about this aspect of the matter and it does not require any elaboration. Insofar as Section 2 (12) is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent- corporation would plead that the Court should give a broader meaning to the same. Section 2 (12) defines a factory as to mean any premises where ten or more persons are employed and manufacturing process is carried on with the aid of the power. Sub-clause (b) further defines a factory as to include an establishment where twenty or more persons carry on the manufacturing process without the aid of the power. It further explains that the precincts of a factory or any part of the establishment where the manufacturing process is carried on is also treated as factory. Sub-clause (b) further defines a factory as to include an establishment where twenty or more persons carry on the manufacturing process without the aid of the power. It further explains that the precincts of a factory or any part of the establishment where the manufacturing process is carried on is also treated as factory. As per sub-section (4) of section 1 of the Act, the Act in the first instance would apply to all factories including the Government factories. Therefore, an establishment to be a factory to be brought under the provisions of the Employees State insurance Act should have manufacturing process. If the establishment is large and only in some part of the establishment manufacturing is carried on, only that part where manufacturing process is carried on either in accordance with Section 2 (12) (a) or 2 (12) (b) would be factory. That is the plain meaning to be given to Section 2 (12) having regard to Section 38 of the Act, which declares that subject to the provisions of the employees State Insurance Act, all employees in factories or establishments to which the Act applies shall be insured. ( 11 ) LEARNED standing counsel for the corporation, however, submits that the entire establishment which carries on some activity, satisfying Section 2 (14-AA) i. e. , manufacturing process should also be included in the definition of factory , cannot be countenanced. Indeed, the decisions of the Supreme Court in Andhra University v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner of a. P. and Osmania University v. Regional director, E. S. I. C. support the view taken by this Court. In these decisions it was held that the activity of printing and publication in small part of the University was treated as the manufacturing process for the purpose of the Employees State Insurance Act as well as the Employees Provident Funds and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. ( 12 ) THE learned Standing counsel also made a submission - though feeble; based on sub-section (5) of Section 1 of the Act, which empowers the State Government, by notification, to apply the provisions of the Act to any other establishment, it is his submission that the Government of Andhra pradesh issued a notification after consultation with the ESI Corporation, applying the provisions of the Act to all establishments other than factories. This cannot be permitted at this stage especially when no such plea was taken before the E. I. Court. ( 13 ) THE impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. Further, the evidence of P. W. 1, who is the Accounts Officer of indian Airlines, would show that he categorically stated that Indian Airlines is not paying the ESI contributions in respect of the central Training Establishment and the booking Office. Curiously, the learned E. I. Court proceeded on the premise that P. W. 1 has deposed as if Indian Airlines is paying the ESI contributions in respect of non- factory area also. In that view of the matter, the impugned order also suffers from perversity, which is a grave error apparent on the face of the record. It is not clear, whether the learned E. I. Court was influenced by this aspect while arriving at a decision or some other factor influenced the decision making. In such an event, it is well settled that the order cannot be sustained. ( 14 ) IN the result, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed insofar as the application of the Act to non-factory area. No costs.