Judgment Bhagwati Prasad, J.- Heard. 2. In this case, the appellant has challenged the order of respondent clubbing two concerns as one firm. M/s. Parasmani product is producing incense sticks and M/s Parasmani Perfumery is trading the Product. Similarity in the names cannot be used to club the two concerns wherein, their income tax and sales tax numbers are different and they are filing different returns and both of these firms are different legal entities. He places reliance on a decision of Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 119/86 decided on 25.04.1996 wherein, this Court has held that two different firms as M/s. Ishwar Sari Centre and M/s. Jodhpur Sari Industries being two different entities were not required to be clubbed for the purpose of ESI 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent has not been able to show anything contrary to it. He has emphasised that the telephone and telex number are same and therefore, they are same entities. 4. I have considered the rival submissions and have given thoughtful, consideration. Merely, commonality of telephone numbers and telex numbers cannot be considered sufficient to club two firms which are transacting different business. The income tax numbers and sales tax numbers are different. One has production line and another is a trading concern. That being the position, these two firms could not have been clubbed. The clubbing is therefore, held illegal. The order holding the two firms as one unit cannot be sustained. With these observations, the appeal is allowed.