ORDER Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant namely, the Deputy Regional Director of ESI Corporation, Bangalore, is aggrieved by the order passed by the ESI Court, inasmuch as the application filed by the respondent herein under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short "The ESI Act") questioning the order passed by the appellant dated 7-3-1995 came to be allowed and the ESI Court took the view that the respondent-hotel namely "Hotel Vijay" cannot be covered under the ESI Act, because, there is no functional integrality between "Hotel Vijay" and "Vijay Restaurant", 2-A. The learned Counsel for the appellant Sri V. Narasimha Holla, submitted that it is the specific case of the appellant that "Vijay Restaurant" is a part and parcel of the respondent establishment i.e. "Hotel Vijay" and if they are treated as one unit, the coverage under the ESI Act becomes inevitable and therefore the order was passed on the basis of the report of the Inspector. But, however, the ESI Court set aside the said order by recording a finding that there was no functional integrality between the two units and as such taken independently, the number of employees in the respondent-Hotel Vijay falls short of the requirement of the ESI Act for coverage. 3. By referring to the evidence on record, particularly, the partnership deed entered into between the members of the Hindu Undivided Family, the learned Counsel submitted that "Hotel Vijay" and ''Vijay Restaurant" are being run by the members of the same Hindu Undivided Family and as such the conclusion that two units form part and parcel of one establishment will have to be drawn. In this connection, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur v Naraini Udyog and Others1. It is further submitted that both the above mentioned establishments are situated in the same building and as such, this fact also leads to the inference that they form one unit. Further, referring to the meaning of the word "Premises" it is submitted that the premises will also mean the building and its environs. In this connection, the decision B.M. Lakshmanamurthy v The Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore2, is pressed into service. Another ruling referred to in this connection is the one in G.L. Hotels Limited and Others v T.C. Sarin and Another3. 4. In this connection, the decision B.M. Lakshmanamurthy v The Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore2, is pressed into service. Another ruling referred to in this connection is the one in G.L. Hotels Limited and Others v T.C. Sarin and Another3. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the ESI Court has assessed the evidence in proper perspective and has recorded a clear finding that there is no functional integrality between the two units and apart from this the ESI Court has also observed that both the establishments were separately registered and there is nothing to show that two establishments form one unit. Hence, in the light of the evidence placed, as has been discussed by the ESI Court, the inference that the two establishments are separate unit will have to be drawn in the instant case. 5. Having heard the submissions made as above and carefully perusing the impugned order as well as the record and taking note of the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondent, I am of the considered opinion that the facts and circumstances on hand do not permit me to take the view that the two establishments form one unit. 6. It has come in the evidence of the witnesses that both the establishments are separately registered and there is no functional or administrative integrality between the two establishments. Even the ESI Inspector, who has submitted the report after inspection was not in a position to say that both the establishments form one unit. There is no evidence on record to show that the employees of one unit are transferred to the other unit and vice versa. The restaurant has separate entrance and so also the hotel. The records are maintained separately by the two establishments. The only thin line that gives semblance of the two establishments forming part of one and the same unit is the partnership deed and the members being the members of the Hindu undivided family. Excepting this fact, there is nothing to show that both the establishments are run by all the members together. But, on the other hand, "Vijay Restaurant" is a proprietorship concern run by one H.K Ramesh, one of the members of the Hindu undivided family. 7. Excepting this fact, there is nothing to show that both the establishments are run by all the members together. But, on the other hand, "Vijay Restaurant" is a proprietorship concern run by one H.K Ramesh, one of the members of the Hindu undivided family. 7. Such being the facts placed in the instant case before the ESI Court, I am of the considered opinion that it is rather difficult to draw the inference that both the establishments form one and the same unit. The facts which were the focus of the decision in Naraini Udyog's case are concerned, that was a case under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and in the said case, on facts, it was found that the firms in question had functional unity and integrality, whereas, in the case on hand as already referred to by me, the ESI Court has recorded a specific finding that there is neither functional unity nor financial integrality between the two firms. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Associated Cement Companies Limited, Chaibasa Cement Works, Jhinkpani v Their Workmen1. In the aforesaid decision at paragraph 11, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus: "11. The Act not having prescribed any specific tests for determining what is 'one establishment, we must fall back on such considerations as in the ordinary industrial or business sense determine the unity of an industrial establishment, having regard no doubt to the scheme and object of the Act and other relevant provisions of the Mines Act, 1952, or the Factories Act, 1948. What then is 'one establishment' in the ordinary industrial or business sense? The question of unity or oneness presents difficulties when the industrial establishment consists of parts, units, departments, branches etc. If it is strictly unitary in the sense of having one location and one unit only, there is little difficulty in saying that it is one establishment. Where, however, the industrial undertaking has parts, branches, departments, units etc., with different locations, near or distant, the question arises what tests should be applied for determining what constitutes 'one establishment' Several tests were referred to in the course of arguments before us, such as, geographical proximity, unity of ownership, management and control, unity of employment and conditions of service, functional integrality, general unity of purpose etc. To most of these we have referred while summarizing the evidence of Mr. Dongray and the findings of the Tribunal thereon. It is, perhaps, impossible to lay down any one test as an absolute and invariable test for all cases. The real purpose of these tests is to find out the true relation between the parts, branches, units, etc. If in their true relation they constitute one integrated whole, we say that the establishment is one; if on the contrary they do not constitute one integrated whole, each unit is then a separate unit. How the relation between the units will be judged must depend on the facts proved, having regard to the scheme and object of the statute which gives the right of unemployment compensation and also prescribes a disqualification therefor. Thus, in one case the unity of ownership, management and control may be the important test; in another case functional integrality or general unity may be the important test; and in still another case, the important test may be the unity of employment. Indeed, in a large number of cases several tests may fall for consideration at the same time. The difficulty of applying these tests arises because of the complexities of modem industrial organisation; many enterprises may have functional integrality between factories which are separately owned; some may be integrated in part with units or factories having the same ownership and in part with factories or plants which are independently owned. In the midst of all these complexities, it may be difficult to discover the real thread of unity." 8. It is therefore clear from the above proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court that if in their true relation the two units constitute one integrated whole, then we say that establishment is one and if on the contrary, if they do not constitute one integrated whole, then each unit is a separate unit. Applying the above test laid down by the Apex Court to the case on hand, it is not permissible to take the view that both the establishments form one integrated whole. As such I do not find any error committed by the ESI Court in allowing the application filed by the respondent. Therefore, no ground is made out to set aside the impugned order. 9. As such the appeal stands dismissed.