Judgment Dr. Indira Shah, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section - 82 of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 against the Judgment and order dated 5.5.2003 passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court, Dibrugarh in ESI Case No. 3/2001. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. M/S. Rameswara Tea Procession Unit, manufacturer of tea filed an application under Section- 75 of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, wherein it was alleged that the tea processing unit of the applicant is a seasonal factory and the opposite party i.e., the Employees' State Insurance Corporation illegally demanded contribution of Rs. 36,650/- from the petitioner alleging that Employees' State Insurance Act is applicable to the manufacturing unit of the petitioner. 3. The opposite party in its written statement, inter alia, alleged that the petitioner's factory has been carrying on manufacturing process of tea including packaging and marketing throughout year with the aid of electrical power by engaging more than 10 persons as detected by the ESI Inspector during the preliminary inspection and therefore the petitioner's manufacturing unit does not deserve any exemption under the Act. The learned ESI Court without formulating any other issues raised in the pleading framed a single issue: "whether the factory exclusively engaged in manufacture of tea and working throughout the year ceases to be seasonal factory." 4. The learned ESI Court relying on the reported case of 1992 Lab. I.C. 60 held that: "petitioner's factory does not cease to be seasonal factory and as such it is not coverable under the provisions of ESI Act and, therefore, the assessment and demands made by the opposite party are illegal and not tenable in law. Accordingly, the demands of opposite party are set aside." 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the findings of the learned Court below that the respondent establishment is not covered under the ESI Act, 1948 is perverse and not legal since the manufacturing unit of the respondent engaged in manufacture of tea, packaging etc. runs throughout the year and carries on the manufacturing of process with the aid of power and is a factory under Section 2(12) of ESI Act. Moreover, several issues were raised during the proceeding but the learned trial Court failed to formulate the other issues and no decision has been given on other issues raised by the appellant in its pleading. 6. Moreover, several issues were raised during the proceeding but the learned trial Court failed to formulate the other issues and no decision has been given on other issues raised by the appellant in its pleading. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that under Section-78 of the Act the ESI Court is a Civil Court. Therefore, the Court ought to have framed all the issues and decide the matter in accordance with CPC. The learned Court below failed to appreciate the provisions of Section-87 of the Act under which the appropriate Govt. can exempt any factory or establishment or class of factories or establishments in any specified area from the operation of the Act. The manufacturing unit of the respondent was not exempted by the Government in terms of Section-87 of the Act. 7. In support of the arguments, learned counsel has referred the case of Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Rhino Industries (M/S) reported in 2013 (1) GLT 756. Section 2(12) of the ESI Act defines the term "factory" and under Section 2(19) of the Act, the definition of "seasonal factory" is given. The meaning of factory and the manufacturing process is same in the definition of seasonal factory under Section 2(19A). The only difference between the two is that the legislature has treated some particular factory as seasonal factory. The manufacturing process of tea has been included in Section 2(19A) of the ESI Act. 8. So far as Section-87 of the Act is concerned, the section has empowered the appropriate Government to exempt any factory or establishment or class of factories or establishments in any specified area from the operation of the Act for a period not exceeding 1 year which are amenable or covered by ESI Act. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the tea process factory of the petitioner has already been excluded from the purview of the operation of the Act by virtue of substantive part of Section- 2(19A) of the Act and there is no further necessity to issue any exemption by notification in terms of Section 87 of the Act. 10. In the case of Regional Director, Employees, State Insurance Corporation v. High Land Coffee Works of REX. Saldanha reported in (1991) 2 SCC 617, it has been observed as under :-- "6. 10. In the case of Regional Director, Employees, State Insurance Corporation v. High Land Coffee Works of REX. Saldanha reported in (1991) 2 SCC 617, it has been observed as under :-- "6. The sole question for consideration is whether the respondents' factories in view of the amendment to the definition of "seasonal factory" have lost the benefit of exclusion from the Act. The High Court on this aspect has observed that the purpose of the amendment was to enlarge and not to restrict the statutory concept of "seasonal factory" and the position of respondent's establishments as seasonal factories under and for the purpose of the Act remained unaltered even after the amendment. 7. The view taken by the High Court seems to be justified. The statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill which later became the Act 44 of 1966 indicates that the proposed amendment was to bring within the scope of the definition of "seasonal factory", a factory which works for a period of not exceeding seven months in a year- (a) in any process of blending, packing or re-packing of tea or coffee; or (b) in such other manufacturing process as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify. The amendment therefore, was clearly in favour of widening the definition of "seasonal factory". The amendment is in the nature of expansion of the original definition as it is clear from the use of the words "include a factory". The amendment does not restrict the original definition of "seasonal factory" but makes addition thereto by inclusion. The word "include" in the statutory definition is generally used to enlarge the meaning of the preceding words and it is by way of extension, and not with restriction. The word "include" is very generally used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute; and when it is so used, these words or phrases must be construed as comprehending, not only such things as they signify according to their natural import but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include." 11. In the judgment of this Court cited by the appellant in case of Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Rhino Industries (supra) is distinguishable on the count that while passing the judgment, the provisions of Section 2(19A) of the ESI Act was not dealt with. Nobody placed into service the provisions of Section 2(19A) of the Act. Moreover, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the reported case of Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corpn v. High Land Coffee Works of P.F.X. Saldanha (supra), the judgment passed by the single Bench of this Court cannot be relied upon being per incuriam. The law relating to precedent has been stated in case of Special Deputy Collector (LA) v. V.N. Vasudeva Rao reported in (2007) 14 SCC 165 and Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka reported in (2008) 3 SCC 574 . It has been held in para-12 of the case as under :-- "12. When this Court renders judgments, it does so with great care and responsibility. The law declared by this Court is binding on all courts. All authorities in the territory of India are required to act in aid of it Any interpretation of a law or a judgment, by this Court, is a law declared by this Court. The wider the power, more onerous is the responsibility to ensure that nothing is stated or directed in excess of what is required or relevant for the case, and to ensure that the Court's orders and decisions do not create any doubt or confusion in regard to a legal position in the minds of any authority or citizen, and also to ensure that they do not conflict with any other decision or existing law. Be that as it may." 12. Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi reported in (2009) 12 SCC 49 , it was held that the decision which is per incuriam is not "law" declared in terms of Article-141 to have a binding effect. 13. So far as non-formulating of other issues by the trial Court is concerned, there is no doubt that ESI Court has been conferred with the powers of a Civil Court but that only for the purpose of summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses, compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects, administering oath and recording evidence. 13. So far as non-formulating of other issues by the trial Court is concerned, there is no doubt that ESI Court has been conferred with the powers of a Civil Court but that only for the purpose of summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses, compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects, administering oath and recording evidence. Sub Clause 2 of Section -78 of the Act says that the Employees' State Insurance Court shall follow such procedure, as may be prescribed by Rules made by the State Government. The only prayer of the respondent in the application before the ESI Court was for declaration that the assessments and demands made by the appellant are illegal and arbitrary and is not tenable in law on the ground that the ESI Act is not applicable to the factory of the applicant The respondent in its written statement denied that the applicant was exempted under the Act. Therefore, moot question before the Court below was whether the ESI Act is applicable in respect of the applicant manufacturing unit Other facts in the petition by the applicant (respondent) were denied only on the ground that the applicant is a factory carrying on manufacturing process of tea throughout the year is liable to pay the contribution as demanded by the appellant. Therefore, the only issue before the trial court was whether the manufacturing unit of the applicant was liable to pay the contribution in terms of Section 2(19A) of the Act. Section 2(19A) of the ESI Act has extended the benefit from the operation of ESI Act to certain specified and named factories which included within its fold, manufacturing process or manufacturing of "Tea" or any manufacturing process incidental to or connected with the said process without putting any restriction on the ground of period during which seasonal factory would operate. By amendment the benefit is extended to other factories besides the factories named in the substantive part of aforesaid section which are engaged for a period not exceeding seven months in a year. 14. In view of the law settled by the Apex Court in Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corpn. v. High Land Coffee Works of P.F.X. Saldanha, this Court finds that the decision arrived at by the learned ESI Court needs no interference. In result, the appeal is dismissed. Return the LCR along with a copy of this order. 14. In view of the law settled by the Apex Court in Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corpn. v. High Land Coffee Works of P.F.X. Saldanha, this Court finds that the decision arrived at by the learned ESI Court needs no interference. In result, the appeal is dismissed. Return the LCR along with a copy of this order. Appeal Dismissed.