Judgment Heard Sri V.B.S. Negi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the Employees State Insurance Corporation. 2. The petitioner is a registered charitable public Trust having its registered office in Mumbai and has a Dharmshala in Haridwar known as 'Gujrat Bhawan'. This Dharmshala has 109 rooms, which are being used to provide temporary accommodation to the pilgrims visiting holy places in Uttarakhand. The Trust, while discharging this facility, has installed a submersible pump in a well from where the water is being lifted which is being used for drinking purposes by the pilgrims. Obviously, this submersible pump works with the aid of power. 3. It transpires that an Inspector of the Employees State Insurance Corporation made an inspection in this Dharmshala on 12th June, 1987 and submitted a report dated 24th February, 1988 indicating that the premises is being used for lodging purposes and that the exact number of persons employed along with the wages were not known. The Inspector, in its report, further indicated that since the petitioner was using a tubewell with the aid of power which is a manufacturing process as defined under Section 2(12) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and therefore, the petitioner is covered under the Act and recommended that a code number should be allotted. Based on the said report, a notice dated 24th February, 1988 was issued intimating the petitioner that the petitioner's Dharmshala was covered under the Act w.e.f. 01-01-1986 in view of the provisions of Section 1(5) read with Section 2(12) of the Act and directed the petitioner to apply for an allotment and pay the contribution. 4. On receipt of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 29th April, 1988 stating that the petitioner is a purely charitable Trust registered under the Public Trust Act, 1950 and is not a factory nor any manufacturing process is being carried out in the premises. 5. 4. On receipt of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 29th April, 1988 stating that the petitioner is a purely charitable Trust registered under the Public Trust Act, 1950 and is not a factory nor any manufacturing process is being carried out in the premises. 5. It transpires that the matter ended at that stage and no further action had been taken by the Department, but, after a lapse of more than 9 years the respondents issued a notice dated 3rd March, 1997/19th April, 1997 intimating that the petitioner had not deposited the contribution w.e.f. January, 1986 to December, 1986 and directed the petitioner to show cause as to why the assessment should not be made under Section 45A of the Act and why a sum of Rs. 2,19,071/- towards contribution should not be recovered. In response to the said notice, the petitioner again submitted a reply reiterating that the petitioner's Trust is not a factory nor any manufacturing process is being carried out in the premises. 6. By an order dated 16th September, 1997, the respondents informed the petitioner that the petitioner's Dharmshala was a factory and consequently, was required to pay the contribution since power was being used in running the tubewell, which amounts to a manufacturing process and consequently, the petitioner was covered as a factory as defined under Section 2(12) of the Act. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order dated 3rd March, 1997/19th April, 1997 as well as order dated 23rd July, 1997, has filed the present writ petition. 7. The respondents admit that the petitioner is a Trust and is running a Dharmshala, which has 109 rooms, which is basically being used for lodging the pilgrims who visit places of pilgrimage in Uttarakhand. The respondents, however, contend that since the Dharmshala is using a tubewell for lifting water with the aid of power through a submersible pump, the same becomes a manufacturing process and consequently, it is a factory under Section 2(12) of the Act and in that manner, the Act becomes applicable. For facility, the provision of Section 1 as it existed at the relevant moment of time when the notice was issued in the year 1986 as well as the provision of Section 2(12) which defines the word "factory", is extracted hereunder: "1. For facility, the provision of Section 1 as it existed at the relevant moment of time when the notice was issued in the year 1986 as well as the provision of Section 2(12) which defines the word "factory", is extracted hereunder: "1. Short title, extent, commencement and application.- (1) This Act may be called THE EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948. (2) It extends to the whole of India [******]. (3) It shall come into force on such date or dates as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint, and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act and [for different States or for different parts thereof]. (4) It shall apply, in the first instance, to all factories (including factories belonging to the Government) other than seasonal factories. (5) The appropriate Government may, in consultation with the Corporation and [where the appropriate Government is a State Government, with the approval of the Central Government], after giving six months' notice of its intention of so doing by notification in the Official Gazette, extend the provisions of this Act or any of them, to any other establishment or class of establishments, industrial, commercial, agricultural or otherwise." "2(12) "factory" means any premises including the precincts thereof 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 with the aid of power or is ordinarily so carried on but does not include a mine subject to the operation of the [Mines Act, 1952] [or a railway running shed]. 8. A perusal of Section 1(4) of the Act indicates that the Act would apply to all factories other than the seasonal factories. Section 1(5) enlarges the area of the operation of the Act to other establishments indicated in the notification. No such notification has been placed before the Court to indicate that the petitioner's establishment, namely, the Dharmshala has been notified as an establishment. The respondents' thrust is on the provision of Section 1(4), namely, that the Act is applicable to all factories. The word "factory" has been defined under Section 2(12) which means any premises where 20 or more persons are employed and where a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power. 9. The respondents' thrust is on the provision of Section 1(4), namely, that the Act is applicable to all factories. The word "factory" has been defined under Section 2(12) which means any premises where 20 or more persons are employed and where a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power. 9. The Inspector's report indicates that the premises is being used as a lodge and that there are more than 20 employees and that a tubewell is being operated with the aid of power and therefore, a manufacturing process is going on and consequently, the Act is applicable upon the petitioner. 10. Lifting of water from a tubewell with the aid of power does not, in my opinion, under any circumstances, amounts to a manufacturing process. In order to ensure that a manufacturing process is going on, the respondents must further indicate as to what product is being manufactured with the aid of power. In the instant case, only water is being lifted and is being used in the same form for drinking. The Court cannot fathom as to where and how and in what manner the respondents have imagined that a manufacturing process is going on in the premises. There is nothing to indicate that the water, which is being lifted through the submersible pump, was subsequently being used for some manufacturing process. 11. The word "manufacturing process" at the relevant moment of time was not defined under the ESI Act, but was subsequently inserted as Section 2(14-AA) from 1989 onwards. However, the word "manufacturing process" has been defined under the Factories Act, 1948. For ready reference, Section 2(k) of the Factories Act defines "manufacturing process" as under: "2(k) "manufacturing process" means any process for- (i) making altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, packing, oiling, washing, cleaning, breaking up, demolishing, or otherwise treating or (ii) adapting any article or substance with a view to its use, sale, transport, delivery or disposal, or (iii) pumping oil, water, sewage or any other substance; or] (iv) generating, transforming or transmitting power, or (v) composing types for printing, printing by letter press, lithography, photogravure or other similar process or book binding;] [or] (vi) constructing, reconstructing, repairing, refitting, finishing or breaking up ships or vessels; [or] (vii) preserving or storing any article in cold storage;] 12. From a perusal of this provision, it is clear that merely lifting of water from a tubewell with the aid of power by itself does not amount to any manufacturing process. 13. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order holding that the petitioner is covered under the Act since its Dharmshala is a factory and is involved in a manufacturing process, is patently erroneous, misconceived and is not based on any cogent evidence. Consequently, the notice as well as the order impugned cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition stands allowed.