Heard Sri Khambam Madhava Reddy, learned counsel representing the appellant and Sri Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:

i) Whether the Court below being a original Court has got jurisdiction to remit the matter to the 1st respondent-Corporation without deciding the dispute between the parties as contemplated under Section 75(1) of ESI Act, 1948?

ii) Whether the Court below properly exercised its jurisdiction in remitting the matter to the 1st respondent-Corporation, even though it has powers of civil Court and criminal Court under Section 78 of ESI Act, 1948 for summoning the records and examining the witnesses and in spite of proving the appellant that it engaged only 9 employees?

3. Sri Khambam Madhava Reddy, learned counsel representing the appellant had taken this Court through the order which is impugned in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and would comment that when the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and RW.1 is available on record and when the documents Exs.P1 to P9 and Exs.R1 to R5 had been marked, the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hydera