According to the appellant herein, his society is registered under the Karnataka Societies Act and the same was established for the purpose of manufacturing the agricultural implements to cater the needs of the agriculturists. The said society has been registered under the Empoyees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (henceforth referred to as ‘the ESI Act, for brevity). According to the appellant, the Branch Manager of ESI Corporation inspected their establishment and issued a notice on 11.06.2005 directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.5,85,288/-. Thereafter, another notice was also issued on 11.07.2005. The reply was given by the appellant’s society explaining its non-liability to pay the alleged amount, which was not accepted by them. However, the respondent-corporation proceeded to issue a notice under Section 45-G of the ESI Act, vide No.KAR.ESIC.CP.53-3030-65, dated 09.10.2006. Challenging the said demand notice dated 11.08.2006 (04.09.2006) and the notice under Section 45-G of the ESI Act dated 09.10.2006, the appellant preferred an application before the Employees’ State Insurance Court, at Hubballi (henceforth referred to as ‘the Court below, for brevity) under Section 75 of the ESI Act. The Court below by its order dated 09.10.2009, rejected the application filed by the appellant herein. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. In his memorandum of appeal, the appellant has taken a contention that the respondent-corporation has failed to notice that the alleged employees with respect to whom the alleged non-contribution of ESI was complied were not his employees. Further, it is also alleged that, no opportunity was given to the appellant, before issuing the demand notice and the notice under Section 45-G of the ESI Act.

3. In response to the notice, the respondents are being represented by their counsel.

4. Perused the lower court records placed before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant in his brief argument submitted that, though it was required under proviso to Section 45-A of the ESI Act, that an opportunity of being heard be given to him, no such opportunity was given, as such, on the sole ground, the impugned order of the Court below is to be set-aside and also his application be allowed quashing Annexures – E & G before the Court below.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent-corporation submitted that, the records clearly shows that sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant and before issuing the demand notice at Annexure-G, a notice at Annexure-E was given for which the appellant has given his reply, as such, an opportunity was given to him. However, in case, if this Court comes to an opinion that, no sufficient opportunity was given to him, the matter may be remanded to the respondent-corporation to proceed further afresh based upon the inspection report at Annexure-A.

7. It is not a case where the appellant establishment contends that it is not governed by ESI Act, but it is a case where the appellant though admits that, it is governed under ESI Act and has been paying ESI amount, both employees and his contribution, but the demand made by the respondent-corporation based upon the alleged inspector’s inspection report at Annexure-A to the application and dated 11.06.2005 was baseless inspection report and the corporation has acted upon the same by proceeding to issue demand notice without giving the appellant-establishment any opportunity of being heard.

8. Section 45-A of the ESI Act, reads as below :

“45A. Determination of contributions in certain cases:

(1) Where in respect of a factory or establishment no returns, particulars, registers or records are submitted, furnished or maintained in accordance with the provisions of section 44 or any {Social Security Officer} or other official of the Corporation referred to in sub-section (2) of section 45 is [prevented in any manner] by the principal or immediate employer or any other person, in exerci