REGIONAL DIRECTOR Vs. K V B RAJESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under section 82 of the ESI Act, against the order of the Employees State Insurance court, Madurai dated 31. 05. 1993.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The respondent has been served and the name of the respondent has also been printed in the cause list, but neither the respondent appeared nor any representation is made on behalf of the respondent.

(3.) THE respondent in this appeal had contended before the e. S. I. Court that there were two separate establishments, one for printing work and the other for composing work. We do not agree with this submission. As held in the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in THE Regional Director, esi Corporation, Madras and Another Vs. Aruna Stores, Proprietrix J. Shantha and another, 2005 (1) MLJ 354, the concept of functional integrality is a well known concept in industrial law, and two units can be treated as one unit for the purpose of industrial law although it may be that for the purpose of sales tax, etc. , or under the general principles of law, they may be treated as two separate units. As observed in the aforesaid decision, if ostensibly they are two units, but, there is functional integrality in the two, then for the purpose of industrial law, they should be treated really as one unit.