JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, C.J.—The instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.05.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court upholding the order dated 08.01.2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jammu and Kashmir, Jammu, which was challenged in an appeal u/s 82 of the State Employees Insurance Act 1948 (for brevity the Act of 1948). The learned Single Judge considered the issue as to whether the appellant could be regarded as factory within the meaning of sub-section 12 of Section 2 of the Act of 1948. The learned Single Judge discussed the view taken by the Tribunal and also the factum that the small scale unit of the appellant has all the ingredient necessary for completing the definition of the term factory within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the Act of 1948. For example, on physical verification it was found that 15 workers were employed by the appellant and the claim made by the appellant that it had engaged only 5/6 workers was rejected. The requirement of sub Section 12 of Section 2 is that ten or more persons are required to be employed for wages on any day of the preceding 12 months and in any part of which a manufacture process is being carried on with the aid of power or is ordinarily so carried on. The appellant failed to produce the record before the Inspector despite various opportunities granted nor any such record was produced before the Tribunal or before the learned Single Judge which could highlight that the observations made by the Inspector at the time of his inspection were not correct. There was no dispute that manufacturing process within the meaning of sub Section 14-AA of Section 2 of the Act read with its definition in the Factories Act, 1948 is carried on the premises of the appellant as a manufacturer of biscuits. 2. Having heard the learned counsel at a considerable length, we are of the view that the evidence has been appreciated firstly by the Tribunal and then by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly it has been found that the appellant, a small scale unit of manufacturing biscuits, has been employing 15 persons, which is much more then the requirement of sub Section 12 of Section 2 of the Act of 1948. Accordingly it has been found that the appellant, a small scale unit of manufacturing biscuits, has been employing 15 persons, which is much more then the requirement of sub Section 12 of Section 2 of the Act of 1948. It is well settled that the findings which have been record on the basis of evidence cannot be set aside in second appeal of this nature by re-appreciating the evidence merely because another view is possible. Therefore, it is not possible to go into the statements and re-appreciate the evidence to record a different conclusion, upsetting the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. 3. There is thus no merit in the appeal and we are not inclined to admit the same. As a sequel to the above discussion, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.