Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948– Appeal against HC judgment raised these issues (i) Whether the workshop of respondent-Nagar Nigam was indulged in manufacturing process while carrying out repairs and maintenance of the tractors, trailers, loaders belonging to the respondent-Nagar Nigam by employing more than 20 workmen? (ii) Whether the workshop of respondent-Nagar Nigam was covered under the definition of ‘factory’ within the meaning of Act of 1948? Allowing appeal, SC observed: High Court clearly erred in entertaining the writ petition and interfering with the recovery notice – it was a fit case wherein, rather than interfering in the matter in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, the respondent-Nagar Nigam should have been relegated by the learned Single Judge to approach the Insurance Court by filing an application under Section 75(1)(g) of the Act of 1948.