ORDER : 1. This appeal is filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation aggrieved by the order dated 05.08.2004 passed in EIC No.38 of 2001 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner seeking that his shop is not coverable under the provisions of the ESI Act is allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that M/s.Bulchand & Company and M/s.Bulchand Enterprises are situated in the same address and the employer of both the Units are one and the same, but the Tribunal erred in concluding that they are different Units and does not cover by ESI and Ex.R10 discloses the principal employer of both the Units. The Statutory Inspector during his investigation on verification of the records found that twenty five (25) persons were employed for wages on 01.01.1995. He would further submit that once the establishment was covered under the Act, it is the statutory duty of the respondent herein to pay the contribution towards premium under the Act, and therefore, sought to set aside the order under challenge. 3. Perusal of the order shows that one Detaram Lalchand is a principal employer of M/s.Bulchand & Company, Ramesh Govindram and Umesh Govindram are nothing to do with it. M/s. Bulchand & Company, M/s. Bulchand Enterprises and M/s. R.G. Bulchand & Company were concluded as same establishment. The Inspector of Corporation visited the petitioner establishment on 22.07.1999 verified the records like attendance and wage registers from January, 1995 to June, 1999 and found that twenty five persons (25) were employed for wages from 01.01.1995. It is the case of the appellant herein that M/s.Bulchand & Company and M/s. Bulchand Enterprises are inter-related and interdependent and are owned by the same principal employer and twenty five (25) persons were working in both the Units. Fourteen (14) employees were working in M/s. Bulchand & Company and eleven (11) employees were working in M/s. Bulchand Enterprises and that it is only one establishment and accordingly Code Number was issued, but the Tribunal after verifying the evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, allowed the petition and hold that the petitioner therein is not coverable under the provisions of the ESI Act. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the case law cited by both the learned counsel. 5. The Chairman of the Tribunal held that Ex.P1-Renewal of Registration Certificate issued by the Labour Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Ex.P2 issued by the Sales Tax Department, Ex.P3-Certificate of Registration issued by the ACTO and Ex.P4-Certificate issued by the Income Tax Department clearly establishes that M/s.Bulchand & Company is doing business at Door No.5-8-615 and 615/1, Abid Road, Hyderabad. Ex.R2 (corresponding to Ex.P1) discloses that Mr.Detaram Lalchand is the owner of the petitioner shop but the names of other establishments were not found in it. Even in Ex.R3-electricity bill, the name of the other establishments was not shown. As per Ex.R4-Form C-10 Notice-preliminary inspections report of the appellant, the respondent herein was doing business of textiles and sales of readymade garments and it employed less than fourteen (14) persons for the years 1995-99. It was mentioned that Bulchand Enterprises was conducting business in the adjacent building but the entrance is same in which it was mentioned that both the establishments are one and the same. Ex.R5-Form C-10 notice, in which the name of Ramesh Govindram was shown as principal employer, but the address of the firm is not noted. As per the comparison between Exs.R4 and R5, the respondent herein was established in the year 1933 and whereas M/s.Bulchand Enterprises was established in the year 1979 and that the nature of business is totally different from each other. As per Ex.R6, Ramesh Govindram was the principal employer of M/s.Bulchand Enterprises and Ex.R7 is their electricity bill. As per Ex.R8, R.G.Bulchand and Company was located at Tilak Road, Hyderabad, and Ex.R9 is its renewal certificate from Labour Department and all the documents produced by the appellant herein clearly establishes that it is totally different from M/s.Bulchand & Company and M/s.R.G.Bulchand and Company. Ex.R10 is the advertisement issued in the name of Bulchand, but in which it was not mentioned that the three establishments are controlled by one employer and also it is not known who issued the said publication. Ex.R10 is the advertisement issued in the name of Bulchand, but in which it was not mentioned that the three establishments are controlled by one employer and also it is not known who issued the said publication. But, the authenticated documents issued by the Labour Department, Sales Tax Department, Income Tax Department and Electricity Department clearly establishes that both the establishments are different from each other and even from a perusal of the Five Wage Registers under Exs.P7 to P11, the respondent herein employed less than fourteen (14) employees from 01.08.1994 to 31.03.1999 and they have not employed more than fourteen employees at any point of time. The said registers were verified by the officials of the Labour Department, ESI Department and also Enforcement Officials of EPF on various occasions in different years and they have put their initials, their remarks at the time of visit and inspection and the said registers were maintained properly and inspected by the officials from time to time. As per the wage registers, the respondent herein has not employed more than fifteen employees at any point of time, and thus, the establishment is not coverable under the provisions of ESI Act, and accordingly, the petition filed by M/s.Bulchand & Company was allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a case law reported in SUMANGALI V/s. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, (2008) 9 SCC 106 holding to the effect that there was unity in management, supervision and control, geographical proximity, financial unity, general unity of purpose and functional integrity between the different units and for the sake of ESI coverage, the different units could be treated as ‘one establishment’. In EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION V/s. BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD, (2009) 10 SCC 671 in which it was held that neither workers concerned of Respondent 1 Board, nor any of them in their representative capacities made parties in petition filed under Section 75 of the Act before ESI Court or High Court challenging notice issued by ESIC under Section 45-A for making employer’s contribution towards ESI, and thus, it is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that labour statutes are meant for the benefit of the workmen. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that labour statutes are meant for the benefit of the workmen. In all these cases the workmen, or at least some of them in a representative capacity, or the trade union representing the workmen must be made as a party, but in this case the workmen was never made as a party and on that ground alone the judgment of the trial Court has to be set aside. He also filed copy of the letter dated 05.12.2002 addressed to the Commissioner of Labour under the Letter Head of ‘Indian National Trade Union Congress’ in which in the third paragraph it is mentioned as follows : ‘For example, the managements of Bulchand at Abids is having one common management and the Regional Director, ESI Corporation, Hyderabad has issued coverage intimation dated 22.03.2000 by allocating code No.52-179220-102 on an average 75 workers are working with the management of Bulchand on each day, but the Labour Departments’ Assistant Labour Officers have issued licenses indicating 13 employees only to Bulchand & Co. He issued license of 8 employees to Bulchand Enterprises, another license for 8 employees to R.G.Bulchand and Company. They have also issued a separate licence to their unit at Secunderabad. Thus, the Asst Labour Officers are colluding with the managements are depriving the benefits to the workers. In fact an advertisement issued by the said management on 12.10.02, Saturday in ‘Eenadu’ Telugu daily newspaper at page 8 clearly shows it is a common management for all the units.’ 8. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that it had not filed the said letter before the Tribunal and filed this after 16 years before this Court and cannot be looked into. The Tribunal allowed the matter in the year 2004 and the letter pertains to the year 2002, but it failed to file the same before the Tribunal and not explained any reasons whatsoever for not presenting the same before the Tribunal. Therefore, it cannot be looked into at this belated stage. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend in this appeal that unless there is clear evidence to show that there was any supervisory, financial or managerial control, it cannot be said that one is the branch of the other. Therefore, it cannot be looked into at this belated stage. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend in this appeal that unless there is clear evidence to show that there was any supervisory, financial or managerial control, it cannot be said that one is the branch of the other. He would further contend that no doubt it is a beneficial legislation but the Court cannot travel beyond the scheme and extend the scope of the statute on the pretext of extending the statutory benefits to those who are not covered by the scheme. He also contend that there is no substantial question of law to maintain the appeal and the number of persons working in the factory, the use of power etc., are purely questions of facts and thus the appeal has no merit. 10. The appellant mainly contended that the workmen was not included as a party to the proceedings and he has not raised the said issue before the Tribunal and respondent counsel contended that in any event the workman was not impleaded, and for the first time he raised the issue at the appellate stage. The objection regarding non impleadment of the workman has to be raised at the earliest point of time before the Tribunal, but the appellant failed to do so. It is for the appellant to prove that both the establishments are inter-related and interdependent to ascertain the functional integrity unity in management. But, he filed only Ex.R.10 which is a paper publication and the Tribunal gave cogent reasons for not considering the same. Apart from that it was clearly held that the other authenticated documents filed by the petitioner and respondent clearly establishes that M/s. Bulchand & Company M/s. Bulchand Enterprises and M/s. R.G.Bulchand & Company are not same establishments but they are different establishments located at different places and the nature of business was also different and they never engaged workers more than fifteen (15) persons at any point of time as per the wage registers and the names of the employees were not reflected in the relevant documents and as such, M/s.Bulchand & Company is not coverable under the provisions of the E.S.I. Act and it needs no interference. 11. In the result, this appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 05.08.2004 passed in E.I.C.No.38 of 2001 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad. 11. In the result, this appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 05.08.2004 passed in E.I.C.No.38 of 2001 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 12. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand dismissed in the light of this final order.