Judgment :- (This appeal is filed under Section 82(2) of the ESI Act, 1948 against the order dated 27-2-2002 passed in ESI Appln No.52/1999 on the file of the Addl. Industrial Tribunal & ESI Court, Bangalore dismissing the application filed under Section 75 of the ESI Act for setting aside the order dated 8-6-1999.) The appellant – Officers Tailoring House, represented by its partner and authorized signatory Sri Rajaguru Vittal Thamre has come up with this appeal seeking to set aside the order dated 27 February 2002 passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal and ESI court, Bangalore, in E.S.I application No.52 of 99, whereby the said court dismissed the application of the appellant and seeking to allow the said application. 2. Thecase of the appellant in brief is that it is a registered partnership firm carrying on business of tailoring, it has not employed more than 7 persons at any point of time, there are two more establishments situated in the same premises, one Officers Wear Depot and another is Shivabaleshwari Silks. The Shivabaleshwari Silks is situated in Mazanine floor and Officers Wear Depot is situated in front portion, whereas the tailoring house situated in the back portion. All the three establishments are independent and they have got separate entrance. It is further case of the appellant that the ESI inspector who visited the said establishments verified the books of accounts and directed to pay the contribution to the tune of Rs.50,193/- for the period from 1-4-1997 to 30-09- 1998 by clubbing all the 3 establishments as one common establishment. It is the case of the appellant that the inspector determined the contribution on the assumption of wages at Rs.3,575/-per month to each employee, that the said two establishments are distinct and independent have nothing to do with each other as the three establishments are separate partnership firm; that all the establishments maintained separate books of accounts; that the income of all the establishments are assessed separately under the income tax Act; that all the establishments have been separately registered under the Karnataka shops and commercial establishments Act; that the recruitment of employees of all the establishments are separate; that there is no inter-transferability of employees between the one establishments to another establishment; that the management and supervision of all the establishments are also separate; that there is no functional integrality or mutual dependency between one establishment and another establishment. But inspite of that the ESI authority passed order under Section 45-A of the ESI Act Covering the appellant establishment under the purview of the Act on the assumption that all the three establishments are one and the same and by taking adhoc wage at 3,575/- per employee, per month and directed the appellant to pay contribution of Rs.50,193/- from 01-04-1997 till 30-09-1998, which order has been challenged by the appellant under Section 75 of ESI Act before the ESI Court, Bangalore, which court had dismissed the application filed by the appellant, confirming the order passed by the respondent. Hence this appeal. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the ESI Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the appellant establishment and other two establishments situated in the same premises are one and the same establishment. It is argued that all the three establishments are separately located managing their business affairs independently; ESI court has come to a wrong conclusion in holding that they are one and the same establishment. It is argued that there is no impediment for carrying out the activities of 2 or 3 establishments in the same premises, the real test is whether one unit could exist without the support of the other. Therefore the finding recorded by the ESI court that there is a mutual dependency between one establishment and another is vague without supportive material. Therefore it is prayed that the order under challenge is liable to be set aside and consequently it is prayed to set aside the order dated 08-06-1999 passed by the respondent corporation under section 45-A of the ESI Act. 5. In support of this contentions the counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision in case of New Pai Sales Corporation And Another Vs. 5. In support of this contentions the counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision in case of New Pai Sales Corporation And Another Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner FJR [Vol 88] Page 323, Wherein, it is held that; Where the two units in question had two different lines of business, and one was not dependent on the other and could exist even if the other closed down, and admittedly, they are separate commercial tax registration, income-tax registration and registration under the labour laws, and they had separate books of account and employees; it is held that there was no functional unity or integrality between the two establishments and that therefore they should be treated as two separate independent units for the purpose of proceedings under the employees provident funds and miscellaneous provisions Act 1952. He has also relied on another decision rendered by our high court in case of Devesh Sandeep Associates and Others Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner reported in ILR 1996 KAR 3651 Wherein it is held that as follows; The first and the foremost to establish the test of functional integrality would be whether the second unit would survive in the absence of first unit or when the first unit is closed whether the second unit continue to do its business activity. He also relied on a recision reported in 1998 (4) KLJ 406 in case of SMT. Mahaboobi and Others vs. Abdul Rashid and others wherein it is held thus: Where in determining amount of compensation in absence of evidence regarding monthly wages of deceased workman, Commissioner has made his own estimate of monthly wages, ignoring minimum wages fixed under relevant statute, amount of compensation so determined by him which is to disadvantage of claimant, is liable to be re-determined on basis of statutory minimum wages. Therefore, it I s submitted that the appeal be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the ESI Court and allow the ESI application. 6. Therefore, it I s submitted that the appeal be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the ESI Court and allow the ESI application. 6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the ESI Court is right in dismissing the application field by the appellant, the appellant has employed more than 10 persons in its establishment, the inspector has rightly noticed that the appellant is to pay the contributions to the extent of Rs.50,193/- for the period from 01-04-1997 till 30-09-1998 as the appellant has paid Rs.3,575/- per month to its each employees, the appellant has not produced the materials before the ESI court that its other two establishments are separate and independent and there is no integrality between the same, merely because the three establishments were separately registered under the Companies Act and they were represented separately by their members is inconsequential, the word ‘establishment’ and beneficial nature under the Act should be taken note to reach the conclusion. It is argued that where the employer establishes/setup its two business establishment in one and the same building and are dependent on each other for their existence the same should be treated as one unit, therefore there is no incorrectness or illegality in the order passed by the respondent. Therefore it is argued that the ESI Court is right in dismissing the application filed by the appellant and hence prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellant. 7. In support of this contentions the learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the following decisions, (a) In case of the regional provident fund commissioner, Jaipur vs. Naraini Udyog and others reported in 1996 (5) SCC 522 , wherein it is held thus: where the two independent units are represented separately by the members of a Hindu Undivided Joint Family, as a fact the functional unity and integrality between the two concerns. Consequently the definition of establishment’ which was widely defined would encompass within its ambit the two units as an establishment for the purpose of the Act. .(b) In case of Modella Woollens LTD. Vs. Consequently the definition of establishment’ which was widely defined would encompass within its ambit the two units as an establishment for the purpose of the Act. .(b) In case of Modella Woollens LTD. Vs. Employees’ State Insurance corporation and Another reported in 1994 SUPP (3) SCC 580, wherein it is held thus: Dispute regarding payable amount of contribution, exact amount payable whether must be decided by the insurance court, where the employer impugned the corporation’ adhoc assessment, without himself stating the correct amount which according to him was payable and the question of law involved was answered against the employer, held the insurance court committed no wrong in accepting the corporation’s assessment as correct without any further scrutiny. 8. Heard the arguments for the counsel for the both the parties. The substantial question of law involved in this appeal, is a) whether the ESI Court is justified in holding the distinct and independent establishments of the appellant as one and the same for the purpose of determination of coverage and also for payment of ESI Contribution? And whether there is any functional unity and integrality mutual dependency between the said establishment? b) Whether the ESI Court is justified in holding the tailoring shop as factory, when no power is used and no manufacturing process is carried on? c) What orders? 9. it is seen that the appellant herein is a partnership firm constituted in the year 1993 carrying on the business of tailoring and it has four partners, it is further admitted fact that the inspector of the respondent corporation made inspection of books of accounts of the appellant establishment for the period from 01-04-1997 till 30.09.1998 and noticed that there were more than 10 employees working in the 3 units within the appellant’s establishment and were using the power and that the appellant was paying wages of Rs.3,575/- for each of its employees and therefore directed the appellant to pay the contribution to the extent of 50,193/- Admittedly the appellant/officers Tailoring House is a tailoring unit, the second unit the Officers Wear Deposit the unit dealing with sale of cloth, the other unit Shivabaleshwari Silks also sells silk fabrics, the cloths sold at Officers Wear Depot and Shivabaleshwari Silks are stitched at appellant establishment therefore the other two units depends upon the functioning of the appellant/the officers Tailoring House, so also the appellant. Therefore all the three units are dependant on each other and one cannot survive without the other. The ESI Court has noticed that there were more than 10 employees working from all the 3 units and were using power i.e., iron box for the purpose of pressing the cloth and also for fusing collar and waist band. There is no proof as such placed on record by the appellant that they were distinct entities independent of each other, the mere fact that the 3 units have been registered before the Sales Tax authorities, before the registration authorities and also before the Income Tax Authorities do not serve the purpose to say that they are 3 different units. From the records it is clear that the appellant is carrying on the business of tailoring, so also the other units were also carrying their business in one and the same premises, there is integrality, mutual dependency in between the 3 units such as tailoring, ironing and fusing collar and waist, pressing of the cloth. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decisions rendered by the apex court, rightly made applicable to the facts of the case on hand, the units having functional unity and integrality, mere fact that they were separately registered under the Companies Act and were represented by separate partners who are common in all the units is inconsequential. Therefore the ESI Court has rightly held that there were more than 10 person employed from all the 3 units and that all the units were interrelated. As such viewed from any angle I do not find any illegality and incorrectness in the order passed by the respondent so also the findings recorded by the court below, thus this appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.