Judgment Heard Shri V. Palekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs. A. Agni, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. By consent, an additional substantial question of law is framed: “Whether the findings of the ESI Court to club the employees of the appellant with M/s Alcon Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., was justified as the parties do not agree with any issue on that count before the learned Tribunal? 3. With regard to the first substantial question of law framed by this Court relying upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2004(5) Bom. C.R. 537 in the case of Gauri Mohan Pohoomul V/s Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation & another, and for the reasons stated therein, it is held that for the purpose of deciding the coverage the employees who were working in the head office of the construction company can be included. 4. With regard to the second substantial question of law, during the course of the hearing of the above appeal, the grievance of the appellant is that while remanding the matter to the Corporation by the impugned judgment, the ESI Court has arrived at the findings that the Corporation was justified to include the employees who were working in the sister concern of the appellant namely M/s Alcon Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., while deciding as to whether the appellant comes within the coverage of the Act. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further pointed out that there was no cogent evidence on record for the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that M/s Alcon Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., is the sister concern of the appellant nor such contention was raised by the respondent before the Corporation. The learned counsel has taken me through the order passed by the Corporation on 16.06.1997 and pointed out that while coming to the conclusion that only the employees of the appellant were considered for arriving at such findings. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the finding that such employees can be considered as the employees of the appellant to find out whether the appellant are covered under the provisions of the said Act is not justified. 5. Mrs. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. Mrs. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the finding that such employees can be considered as the employees of the appellant to find out whether the appellant are covered under the provisions of the said Act is not justified. 5. Mrs. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. Mrs. Agni, learned Counsel has pointed out that it is well settled that the employees of the sister concern can be included for the purpose of deciding the coverage of the appellant. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the respondent cannot be precluded from including the employees working in the sister concern for the purpose of finding out whether the appellant comes within the coverage of the Act. The learned counsel further pointed out that as the matter has been remanded by the Tribunal, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. But however, submitted issue as to whether M/s Alcon Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., is a sister concern and whether their employees can be clubbed for the purpose of considering the coverage can be kept open to be considered by the Corporation in accordance with law. The learned counsel as such submits that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. 6. Taking note of the contention of Mrs. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, I find that the apprehension of Shri Palekar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant to the effect that the issue as to whether M/s Alcon Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., is a sister concern and whether such employees can be included for the purpose of deciding the coverage of the appellant would be considered by the Corporation after the remand in accordance with law. Any observation in the impugned judgment on that count would not survive or come in the way of the Corporation deciding the said aspect on its own merits. Keeping the said contention open, I find that there is no reason for any further interference in the impugned judgment. All contentions of the parties on merits on that count are left open. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.