JUDGMENT The appeal is filed under Section 82 of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short, 'ESI Act') against judgment and order of EIC No.3/2004, which was pending before Employees Insurance Court, South Goa, Margao. The application filed by present respondent, business concern under Section 75 of ESI Act to challenge the orders made by present appellant, Corporation on 29/07/1998 and 17/08/2004, which were made to cover the establishment of respondent under ESI Act and to ask the respondent to give the contribution, is allowed by Insurance Court. In the present proceedings both sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of appeal can be stated as follows: On 29/06/1998, one Inspector of Insurance Office of the appellant, Corporation visited the office premises of present respondent situated at Pereira Chamber, Vasco-da-Gama and he inspected the record of the employees of the respondent. Accountant of respondent produced the record like wage register, attendance register, etc. The Inspector found that in the month of January, 1997 there were 27 employees on this establishment. The Inspector found that the unit of respondent was established many years back and it was in the business of “shipping agents and cargo handling agents”. The Inspector considered the wage register, attendance register and other record supplied by the Accountant. He left visit note with the office of the respondent unit and informed that the establishment was coverable under the provisions of ESI Act from 1/01/1997, provisionally. 3. By letter dated 3/08/1998, the Regional Director of appellant, Corporation asked respondent to take steps for registration and for depositing the contribution as per the provisions of ESI Act. It was also informed that under Section 1(5) of ESI Act, appropriate Government, Goa State Government had issued notification dated 21/06/1977 in this regard. Copy of the notification was supplied to the respondent by appellant, Corporation. Appellant calculated the contribution payable by respondent and it was informed that the amount calculated was the proposed amount which would be recovered as contribution from respondent. Opportunity was given to the respondent to offer explanation in respect of the liability shown in the correspondence. The respondent was directed to pay contribution for the period 1/01/1997 to 30/09/1998. Hearing was given to the respondent after giving of the say by the respondent and after that the order under Section 45(A) came to be made. 4. Opportunity was given to the respondent to offer explanation in respect of the liability shown in the correspondence. The respondent was directed to pay contribution for the period 1/01/1997 to 30/09/1998. Hearing was given to the respondent after giving of the say by the respondent and after that the order under Section 45(A) came to be made. 4. The respondent has contended in the application filed under Section 75 of ESI Act that the order made by Corporation under Section 45(A) of ESI Act is without jurisdiction. It is contended that appropriate Government under ESI Act for covering the employees of present respondent is Central Government as the employees are working in Major Port. It is contended that the employees of the respondent-establishment are not covered by the State Government's notification as most of the employees get monthly wages of more than Rs.6,500/- and this amount does not include overtime. 5. The respondent-establishment contended that it is bound by the legislation and regulations made with regard to the working of Major Port. It is contended that under Section 43 of Major Port Trust Act, 1963, which covers Mormugao Port Trust (MPT), only the Board has the power to undertake services at the Major Port by itself or through other persons like stevedore licences. It is contended that this Act shows that the Board is under control and supervision of the Central Government. It is contended that under this Act powers are given to the Board to make regulations. It is contended that the powers are with regard to reception, portage, storage and removal of goods brought within the premises of the Port. It is contended that under Mormugao Port Trust (licensing of stevedores) Regulations, 1987, the stevedore is bound to employ at least one experienced person to supervise in every vessel in respect of which he has undertaken the stevedoring operation and the stevedore is expected to get the work of stevedoring done only through his own staff and the staff and workers brought from Mormugao Port Trust (Licence conditions (i) and (g)). 6. It is the case of respondent-establishment that it is in the business of stevedoring in Mormugao Major Port. It is contended that at the relevant time it was holding the licence issued by the Board of trustees of the Port. 6. It is the case of respondent-establishment that it is in the business of stevedoring in Mormugao Major Port. It is contended that at the relevant time it was holding the licence issued by the Board of trustees of the Port. It is contended that the establishment of respondent was handling general cargo to very minor extent in this Port and most of the goods handled were iron and manganese ore. It is contended that respondent-establishment had appointed persons to supervise the work like Tally clerks and foreman to see that the work at Port was properly done. 7. It is the case of the respondent-establishment that even the notification issued by the State Government does not cover stevedoring activity and the establishment of the respondent does not fall under the definition of “shops” mentioned in the notification. 8. In the application, the respondent-establishment has made a mention about the scheme prepared for handling work at Port and it is contended that out of the employees noted by the officers of Corporation, 17 were Port workers and they include 12 Tally clerks and 5 foreman. It is contended that other staff, 9 in number were working at other place, but it was also involved in the same work. However, it is admitted that the total number was 27 in March and April, 1998 when the visit was paid by the Inspector. 9. It is the case of respondent-establishment that the persons who were working with respondent-establishment need to be treated as the persons working in Major Port and that point is decided in various reported cases. By making such contentions and also by contending that stevedoring work is intermittent and seasonal work the respondent, establishment prayed for setting aside the orders, communications made by the Corporation with regard to the coverage, with regard to the finding given on overtime and with regard to the contribution which the respondent was asked to pay. 10. Before Insurance Court, the Corporation contended that the office, establishment of the respondent was situated at Vasco and it had no separate establishment at Harbour place. In the order made under Section 45(A) of Insurance Act, the relevant record of the establishment is considered and it is observed that in respect of all the employees, the establishment has its own muster register, wage register, etc. In the order made under Section 45(A) of Insurance Act, the relevant record of the establishment is considered and it is observed that in respect of all the employees, the establishment has its own muster register, wage register, etc. and neither the establishment nor the employees have the status as mentioned in Section 2(1) of ESI Act. It is observed that the establishment of the respondent is not under the control of Port and it is carrying out business activity in the office place. It is observed that as a clearing and forwarding agent the establishment is undertaking the work of its client and for the business purpose if some employees visit the Port, that does not mean that the employees work under the control of the Port Authority. It is observed that the Port has unique scheme and the workers of the Port are under the control of Administrative Committee and these workers are allotted by the committee to private employer like the respondent-establishment and only those workers are under control of the Port. It is observed that the employees mentioned in the list of the wage register cannot be compared with the pool workers or other workers of the Port Administration. It is held that in respect of the employees of the respondent-establishment, Government of Goa is the appropriate Government for ESI Act. Some observations are made with regard to the double payment of wage shown to be given to few employees by the respondent, establishment in the order and it is observed that extra payment given for the second consecutive shift needs to be treated as overtime allowance and not as wages. 11. The Insurance Court framed 3 issues and has held that the staff of respondent-establishment and particularly those persons who were shown by the respondent as working in the Harbour cannot be called as “employees” for the purpose of ESI Act as they were working in Major Port. It is further held that the State notification does not apply to the establishment of respondent. In the result, the ESI Court has quashed and set aside the final order and coverage order made by appellant-Corporation against the establishment. 12. It is further held that the State notification does not apply to the establishment of respondent. In the result, the ESI Court has quashed and set aside the final order and coverage order made by appellant-Corporation against the establishment. 12. The Insurance Court has considered some reported cases on which reliance was placed by the respondent-establishment and it is observed that the decision given by this Court in ESI appeal which was filed against decision of ESI case No.9/2003 applies to the present matter. The said appeal was filed by Mormugao Handling Agents Association against Insurance Corporation. In that case the persons who were available with this association as workers, were doing similar work like the work of registered dock workers and so it was held that it was not possible to make coverage order against them. It was further observed that for the association they were not the employees as they were to be allotted to do work in place of registered dock workers and they were to do work for registered employers. Here only it needs to be observed that the employees of respondent-establishment were not under the control of the said association or under the control of the Board or administrative committee. In such cases, it is always desirable to ascertain the nature of work, the relationship between the workers and the establishment and the control over such workers if any of the authority created for administration of work of Major Port. 13. The Insurance Court in the present case has further held that those workers cannot be considered along with the other workers to constitute one establishment. The Insurance Court also considered the submission that in view of the inapplicability Act, 1997, the settlement which was arrived between the employer and the Union will have to be followed. The Insurance Court accepted the submission that as per the scheme and regulations the outsiders cannot be allowed to work in the Port area and so those workers cannot be considered for making the tally 20 for the purpose of ESI Act. It is further observed that the activity of stevedoring is seasonal and so ESI Act cannot have application. It is held that the establishment of the respondent cannot be treated as a shop or establishment coverable under ESI Act. 14. It is further observed that the activity of stevedoring is seasonal and so ESI Act cannot have application. It is held that the establishment of the respondent cannot be treated as a shop or establishment coverable under ESI Act. 14. For the present proceeding, this Court has framed the substantial question of law by the order dated 26/08/2011 as under: 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the E.S.I. Court was justified in holding that in respect of the establishment of the respondent, the appropriate Government was the Central Government and not the State Government? No case of Apex Court, this Court or other High Court squarely in respect of the employees involved in the present proceedings was shown to this Court by both the sides. 15. For considering the rival cases in proper perspective and for proper interpretation of the various provisions of the Act, the provisions of scheme, rules and regulations, the Court is expected to see the provisions of ESI Act first. The statement of object and reasons of this Act show that the scheme envisaged is one of compulsory State Insurance providing certain benefits in the event of sickness, maternity and employment injury to workman covered under the Act. The provisions of Section 1(3) and (4) of the Act show that the Act applies to all factories and establishments, except those which belong to Government or which are under control of Government and where the employees are otherwise in receipt of benefits substantially similar or superior to the benefits provided under this Act. From the scheme of the Act it can be said that the establishment like present respondent is expected to make out case that it is excluded from the provisions. 16. Section 1(5) of ESI Act shows that the Act can be made applicable by appropriate Government to other establishments which may be industrial, commercial, agricultural or otherwise. Section 1(6) of the Act shows that once the Act becomes applicable, it shall continue to become applicable notwithstanding that the number of persons employed therein at any time falls below the limit prescribed under the Act. The provisions of Section 87 of the Act show that if the provisions of the Act apply to a factory or establishment the appropriate Government may exempt the establishment, etc. The provisions of Section 87 of the Act show that if the provisions of the Act apply to a factory or establishment the appropriate Government may exempt the establishment, etc. from particular area from the operation of the act for the period not exceeding one year by a notification in Official Gazette. However, this exemption can be made only if the employees are getting similar benefits as mentioned in Section 1(4) of the Act. 17. Section 38 of the ESI Act shows that all employees in the factories and establishments to which the Act applies shall be insured under the Act. As the employer is expected to pay the contribution, such employer is always interested in denying the liability and so it becomes the duty of the Court and also the authority like Corporation to identify the persons employed by such employer who need to be given cover of the insurance Act. All the provisions need to be seen with such approach. This Court has seen the schemes of Indian Dock Labourers Act, 1934, Dock Workers (Regulations of Employment) Act 1948, Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986 with scheme of 1961 and also the regulations of 1990 and rules like Dock Workers (Regulations of Employees) Rules, 1962. 18. The aforesaid acts were made for giving protection to the dock workers and for their welfare and safety. These workers are doing the work of loading and unloading the ships and they also do the work which is called as process, which is required to be incidental to the loading and unloading ships. Dock Workers Employment Regulation Act, 1948 shows that such workers came to be named as dock workers and the scheme was prepared to see that these dock workers get regular employment. The scheme under the Act provides for regulation of such workers and also the employers who get work from such workers. Dock labour board and advisory committee came to be created for implementation of scheme prepared under the Act. This committee consists of Government, dock workers, employers and shipping companies. Section 3 of this Act shows that an attempt is to be made by the authorities to regulate employment of dock workers whether registered or not, they are to fix and supervise the terms and conditions of employment of such workers including rates of remuneration, hours of work, etc. This committee consists of Government, dock workers, employers and shipping companies. Section 3 of this Act shows that an attempt is to be made by the authorities to regulate employment of dock workers whether registered or not, they are to fix and supervise the terms and conditions of employment of such workers including rates of remuneration, hours of work, etc. Under the scheme, it is expected that such workers receive minimum pay when employment or full employment is not available. These provisions need to be kept in mind. The employer, respondent-establishment was expected to show that the employees on the attendance register and wage register are controlled by Board. 19. If the development of the law in respect of the dock workers is seen and the provisions of the Act like Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, Welfare Act and the Safety Schemes prepared by Port authorities are seen, it can be said that the workers which fall under the scheme of these Acts are under control of the authorities created under these legislations. Their work hours, pay, etc. is controlled under the scheme and there are separate welfare legislations and safety measures. 20. The definitions of Dock Worker, Employer and Principal Employer given under Act of 1986 are important and they are as under: 2(e) “dock worker” means a person employed or to be employed directly or by or through any agency (including a contractor) with or without knowledge of the principal employer, whether for remuneration or not, on dock work; 2(f) “employer”, in relation to a dock worker, means the person by whom he is employed or is to be employed on dock work, whether for remuneration or not; 2(g) “principal employer”, in relation to a dock worker employed or to be employed by or through any agency (including a contractor) means the person in connection with whose work he is employed or is to be employed by such agency. 21. These definitions show that the principal employer like the present respondent may not have control over the employees covered under aforesaid legislations. The scheme provides registered dock workers, who are available for work and who can be assigned, allotted for the work of particular principal employer like the present respondent. The steps for removal, dismissal, etc. in respect of such workers can be taken under the scheme itself (clause 35). The scheme provides registered dock workers, who are available for work and who can be assigned, allotted for the work of particular principal employer like the present respondent. The steps for removal, dismissal, etc. in respect of such workers can be taken under the scheme itself (clause 35). The power in this regard is with Board. Thus the dock Labour Board controls such workers. In the case reported as Vizagapatam Dock Labour Board V/s. Stevedores Association 1970 (2) SCR 303 the Apex Court has considered this scheme and following observations are made: “............................................................................. From the provisions of Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 and the Vizagapatnam Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, it is evident that the Board is a statutory body charged with the duty of administering the scheme, the object of which is to ensure that greater regularity of employment for dock workers arc available for the efficient performance of dock work. The Board is an autonomous body, competent to determine and prescribe the wages, allowances and other conditions of service of the dock workers. The purport of the Scheme is that the entire body of workers should be under the control and supervision of the Board. The registered employers are allocated monthly workers by the Administrative Body and the Administrative Body supplies whenever necessary, the labour force to the Stevedores from the Reserve Pool. The workmen who are allotted to the registered employers are to do the work under the control and supervision of the registered employers and to act under their directions. The registered employers pay the wages due to the workers to the Administrative Body and the latter, in turn, as agent of the registered employers, pay them over to the concerned workmen. The registered employer to whom the labour force is allotted by the Board is the employer whose work they do. The functions of the Board such as recruitment and registration of the dock labour force, fixation of wages and dearness allowance, payment of workmen's compensation, taking of disciplinary action and prohibition against employment of workers who were not registered with the Board do not establish a relationship of employer and employee between the Board and the dock labour.” 22. The functions of the Board such as recruitment and registration of the dock labour force, fixation of wages and dearness allowance, payment of workmen's compensation, taking of disciplinary action and prohibition against employment of workers who were not registered with the Board do not establish a relationship of employer and employee between the Board and the dock labour.” 22. “Appropriate Government” is mentioned in Section 2(1) of ESI Act and the section runs as follows: 2(1) “appropriate Government” means, in respect of establishments under the control of the Central Government or [a railway administration] or a major port or a mine or oilfield, the Central Government, and in all other cases, the State Government. For ascertaining the “appropriate Government” mentioned in the aforesaid provision with regard to Major Port one is expected to see the provisions with regard to the workers who are expected to work at Major Port. In that connection the definition of “employee” given in Section 2(9) of ESI Act needs to be kept in mind. The definition of “employee” given under this Act includes person employed by the principal employer and also person employed through immediate employer. Thus, the definition is wide. Under the legislation made for dock workers the principal employer like respondent, establishment has no control over the employment and termination of services of dock workers and they are differently dealt with. 23. Notification of Mormugao Port Trust of 1987 provides for employing other persons also by stevedore and it can be said that the other employees like supervisors who are required to be employed by stevedore are not treated as dock workers and they are treated as the employees of the stevedore. Thus, only because such workers go to the Port for doing supervision under the rules and regulations made with regard to stevedore work, they do not come under the control of the Board or Committees constituted under the aforesaid Acts. The provisions show that they are treated as separate staff of stevedores and the benefits of the aforesaid legislations are not given to them. 24. The learned Counsel for the respondent, establishment made submission that stevedore, licence holder discharges the function of the Board constituted under the aforesaid legislation and so the persons appointed by the stevedores for such work necessary fall under the provisions made for dock workers. This submission is not acceptable. 24. The learned Counsel for the respondent, establishment made submission that stevedore, licence holder discharges the function of the Board constituted under the aforesaid legislation and so the persons appointed by the stevedores for such work necessary fall under the provisions made for dock workers. This submission is not acceptable. This Court has seen the regulations of 1950 and various notifications. They provide for issuing stevedoring licence and that permits persons like respondent to act as stevedore at the Port, to perform the work of landing and shipping of goods between vessels in the Port. This is subject to the conditions which are imposed. One of the conditions is that he has to use the dock workers as provided by the Board and he has to apply the provisions of various Acts mentioned in clause no.4 and 5 of notification of Mormugao Port Trust of 1987. These clauses are in respect of the dock workers covered under Dock Labours Regulation Act, etc. Under clause 5 of the said notification, such establishment is expected to employ at least one experienced person to supervise in every vessel in respect of which he has undertaken stevedoring operation. The work which is expected to be taken from supervisor is also mentioned in clause 5(j). Clause 5(q) of this notification shows the persons who can be used by him. On the basis of these provisions, it cannot be said that the functions of the Board given under legislation are delegated to the stevedore and the persons employed by the stevedore to supervise the things are treated as dock workers. The scheme and other provisions do not show that such supervisors get the protection of aforesaid legislations made for dock workers. 25. It is already observed that the decision given by this Court in Appeal Under E.S.I. No.9/2003 in the Mormugao Handling Agents Association's case was not squarely on the point involved in the present case. The workers involved in the said matter were totally different, not only due to the nature of the work, but the circumstances due to which association was formed and the pool of such workers was created. Those workers were very much similar to the dock workers and they were being used in place of dock workers. 26. The workers involved in the said matter were totally different, not only due to the nature of the work, but the circumstances due to which association was formed and the pool of such workers was created. Those workers were very much similar to the dock workers and they were being used in place of dock workers. 26. The learned Counsel for appellant-Corporation placed reliance on one case decided by this Court and reported as 2009 (1) Bom.C.R. 335 (Italab (Goa) Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Deputy Regional Director of ESI Corporation). The facts of this reported case show that there was an establishment which was doing the business of sampling of iron and for that the establishment had appointed staff like chemist and samplers. These employees used to collect sample of ores from the Port for sending them to laboratory. The establishment was recognized agency under Section 7 of Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963. For the purpose of Section 21 of IPC, these employees were to be held as public servants but they were not the employees of either the Board or the Central Government. In view of the facts of that case, this Court held that the employees were not under control of Central Government or authority created by Central Government and the Court went on to hold that these employees were coverable under the provisions of ESI Act. It was held that the State Government has the power to issue notification in respect of such employees. So far as the circumstances like mode of appointment, the control over the employees is concerned it can be said that the facts of the reported case are similar to the present case. 27. In the case reported as AIR 1961 Bom. 277 (Tulsidas Khimji Vs. F. Jeejeebhoy of Bombay and Ors.) this Court interpreted Section 25(g) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and has also discussed the scope of inquiry. On facts, this Court held that different departments of business firm could not be regarded as constituting a single establishment if they are distinct and in themselves are complete units carrying on different lines of business. It was held that there was no functional integrality existing between them. On facts, this Court held that different departments of business firm could not be regarded as constituting a single establishment if they are distinct and in themselves are complete units carrying on different lines of business. It was held that there was no functional integrality existing between them. This case was cited to support the decision of Insurance Court which is to the effect that the employees working in Port need to be treated as different group and not part of the establishment created at Vasco-da-Gama. The facts of the reported case were altogether different. In the present case, for the same business of respondent-establishment all the employees were appointed. The only dispute is about the application of law to these two groups created by the establishment. 28. In the case reported as (2001) 3 SCC 321 (Damodar Mangalji & Co. V/s Regional Director of ESI Corporation), the application of ESI Act to the employees working at the head office of establishment of mines situated away from mines is discussed. Some workers were working in the office whereas the others were working in the mine. It was held that the provisions of Mines Act, 1952 were applicable to the workers who were actually working in the mines and the other employees were not covered under the said Act and so the State Government was appropriate Government for issuing notification with regard to those employees. The classification of employees was made on the basis of provisions of Act like Mines Act, in view of the nature of the work which the workers were actually doing and the places of their work. The decision cannot help the respondent-establishment to say that the employees, who were visiting the Port are covered by the authority created for the Major Port. The cases reported as (1962) 3SCR 934 (M/s. Serajuddin & Co. V/s. Workmen) and (1966) 2 SCR 589 (The Ballarpur Collieries V/s. State Industrial Court) can be cited on the same point. 29. A copy of Civil Rule no.16923(W) of 1975, the matter between Radha Shyam Bagaria V/s. Union of India & Ors. decided on 21/06/1979 by Calcutta High Court was produced by the learned Counsel for respondent-establishment. The facts of this case show that the activity of ship building carried out at some distance from Port was considered. The question was to find out appropriate Government for such activity. decided on 21/06/1979 by Calcutta High Court was produced by the learned Counsel for respondent-establishment. The facts of this case show that the activity of ship building carried out at some distance from Port was considered. The question was to find out appropriate Government for such activity. The dispute was referred by the Central Government to Industrial Tribunal. Calcutta High Court held that the decision of the Tribunal that the reference was valid and tenable was erroneous and was set aside. On facts, it can be said that this decision can no way help the respondent, establishment. 30. The case reported as 1997 (2) LLN 387 of Madras High Court in the case of Madras Dock Labour Board V/s. Government of Tamil Nadu was in respect of the workers similar to the dock workers. Pool of workers was created by administrative committee of Board in that case. This decision is on the line of the decision given by this Court in Mormugao Handling Agents Association's case cited supra. In this case, the High Court held that the central government was the appropriate Government. There cannot be dispute over this proposition. 31. In view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the cases already cited and other various cases of other High Courts, it can be said that for ascertaining the appropriate Government mentioned in Section 2(1), the factors like the nature of work, the relationship between the worker and the establishment and the nature of the control of the establishment over the workers, the nature of business of the establishment and the provisions of law which are made applicable to such workers need to be considered. Further, the intention behind the provisions of ESI Act needs to be kept in mind. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no notification of Central Government in favour of the employees involved, to the effect that they are coverable under the provisions of ESI Act. Learned Counsel for the respondent-establishment submitted that it is open to the Central Government to issue such notification. In view of the facts of this case, this Court holds that this proposition is not acceptable. Learned Counsel for the respondent-establishment submitted that it is open to the Central Government to issue such notification. In view of the facts of this case, this Court holds that this proposition is not acceptable. Further, if the provisions of ESI Act are considered and the material produced by the respondent-establishment is considered, it can be said that all the 27 employees of the respondent were not receiving benefits similar to the benefits made available under ESI Act. Thus, there is no case for respondent-establishment to say that his employees cannot be covered by the notification of the State Government. 32. The notification of the Government of State of Government issued under Section 1(5) of ESI Act, 1948 shows that the provisions of the Act are extended to three clauses of establishments mentioned in the notification. The third clause is as under: 3. The following Establishments whereon twenty or more persons are employed or were employed for wages on any day of the proceeding twelve months, namely:- The revenue limits of:- i) Hotels; ii) Restaurants; iii) Shops; 1. The Circles Panaji and Carambolim in Taluka Ilhas; iv) Road Motor Transport Establishment; 2. The Circles Margao, Verna and Benaulim in Taluka Salcete; v) Cinemas including preview Theaters; 3. The Circles Mapusa and Calangute in Taluka Bardez; vi) Newspaper Establishments as defined in clause (d) of Section 2 of the Working Journalists (conditions of service) and miscellaneous provisions Act, 1955 (Central Act 45 of 1955). 4. The Circles Vasco-da-Gama and Cansaulim in Taluka Mormugao; 5. The Circles Ponda and Priol in Taluka Ponda. 6. The Circles Bicholim and Sanquelim in Taluka Bicholim, and 7. The Circles Quepem in Taluka Quepem, in the district of Goa of the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu. 33. As per the record, the business of respondent-establishment is "ship agents and cargo handling agents". The office of respondent is situated at Vasco-da-Gama, away from the Port. The wage register and muster roll of the 27 employees were found in this office. The submissions made show that during pendency of the proceedings most of the employees were retrenched by the establishment. The learned Counsel for respondent made submission that in respect of the said dispute reference was made to Industrial Tribunal by the Central Government and so it needs to be inferred that Central Government is appropriate Government for the present purpose also. The learned Counsel for respondent made submission that in respect of the said dispute reference was made to Industrial Tribunal by the Central Government and so it needs to be inferred that Central Government is appropriate Government for the present purpose also. This submission is not at all accepted. Inference cannot be drawn on the basis of such circumstances. This circumstance however shows that the power of removal was with the respondent, establishment. The said record of industrial dispute need not be considered for the observations already made. 34. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the establishment itself is closed and the stevedore licence was not renewed by the respondent after starting of the dispute. In the case reported as AIR 1993 SC 1530 (Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Versus Hotel Kalpaka International),the Apex Court has laid down that the proceeding started by corporation cannot be closed due to circumstance like closure of the establishment and the demand of corporation of contribution can be still enforced. In view of this circumstance, the present matter cannot be put to an end. Further, the aforesaid substantive question of law is involved and it needs to be decided by this Court as there are many such employees. 35. In support of the case that the establishment of the respondent needs to be treated as a shop, the learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the case reported as AIR 1993 SC 252 (M/s. Cochin Shipping Co. V/s. ESI Corporation). In this case, the Apex Court has laid down that the term "shop" has wide meaning and specific enumeration or inclusion of business activity in the notification cannot be insisted upon. It is further observed by the Apex Court that ESI Act is a welfare legislation and liberal interpretation should be put on notification extending the benefits of the Act. On this point the case reported as 1987 (2) SCR 377 (Hindu Jea Band, Jaipur V/s. Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Jaipur etc.) can also be referred. 36. On the aforesaid point, the decision of Supreme Court given in Civil Appeal no.3508 of 1996 on 2/02/1966 in the matter between Municipal Committee, Abohar V/s. Regional Commissioner, ESI Corporation & Anr. is cited by the learned counsel for the respondent. 36. On the aforesaid point, the decision of Supreme Court given in Civil Appeal no.3508 of 1996 on 2/02/1966 in the matter between Municipal Committee, Abohar V/s. Regional Commissioner, ESI Corporation & Anr. is cited by the learned counsel for the respondent. In this case, when it was shown to the Court that the employees of Municipal Committee were covered under statute and were provided with health scheme, medical facilities, etc., the Court held that these benefits were similar to the benefits given under ESI Act and therefore such employees cannot be covered under ESI Act. There cannot be dispute over this point. This point is already discussed by this Court. 37. One more point is considered by Insurance Court. The case of the establishment that the work is seasonal and due to that the employees shown in the aforesaid record cannot be counted, is accepted. In this regard Section 2(19-A) of ESI Act, 1948 needs to be kept in mind. It defines 'seasonal factory' and it runs as under: 2(19-A) - “seasonal factory” means a factory which is exclusively engaged in one or more of the following manufacturing processes, namely, cotton ginning, cotton or jute pressing, decortication of groundnuts, the manufacture of coffee, indigo, lac, rubber, sugar (including gur) or tea or any manufacturing process which is incidental to or connected with any of the aforesaid processes and includes a factory which is engaged for a period not exceeding seven months in a year- (a) in any process of blending, packing or repacking of tea or coffee; or (b) in such other manufacturing process as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify. 38. Section 1(4) of Insurance Act shows that the Act is not applicable to seasonal factories. In view of the nature of activity of the respondent-establishment it cannot be said that it is seasonal activity. Further in this regard also the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Hindu Jea Band, Jaipur, cited supra can be used. In that case also it was contended that the business of band is available only when there are marriages and the marriages take place in particular period of the year. The contention of the establishment was not accepted by the Apex Court. In that case also it was contended that the business of band is available only when there are marriages and the marriages take place in particular period of the year. The contention of the establishment was not accepted by the Apex Court. Further, in the present case, as per the record, the employees were not appointed for fixed period of year and as per the record they were continued through out the year. So this defence is not available to the respondent-establishment and the Insurance Court has committed error in this regard also. 39. In view of the activity of the respondent-establishment and the circumstances already discussed, this Court holds that the establishment of respondent falls under “shop” mentioned in the State Government's notification. So, the point is answered in negative and it is held that appropriate Government is the State Government of Goa. 40. The case of the respondent-establishment that most of the employees were getting more than Rs.6,500/- per month as wages and the excess amount paid for one shift cannot be treated as overtime is not considered and decided by Insurance Court with regard to the relevant provisions. Even the provisions of Mormugao Dock workers (Regulations of Employment) 1965 prohibits giving more than normal rates of wages for work when workers are working for more than one shift in a day (clause 30-c of the scheme). In any case, on this point the employees also need to be heard. In the case reported as (2009) 9 SCC 485 (Fertilizers And Chemicals Travancore Limited Versus Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation & Ors. Apex Court has laid down that in such a case it is always desirable that the employees are heard. In view of aforesaid circumstances and only for taking decision on this point, this Court holds that the matter needs to be remanded back to the Insurance Court. 41. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The substantial question of law framed in this matter is answered in negative and it is held that the state Government is appropriate Government. The matter is remanded back to the Insurance Court for taking decision on the point of the wages fixed of all the 27 employees. No orders to costs.