JUDGMENT :

Harsha Devani, J.

This appeal under section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the E.S.I. Act") is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.4.2007 passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the E.S.I. Court") in E.S.I. Application No.43 of 2003 whereby the application has been allowed and the order dated 9.10.2002 passed by the original opponents No.1 and 2 under section 45A of the E.S.I. Act has been quashed and set aside and the recovery certificate under sections 45A to 45I whereby the respondent is covered under the E.S.I. Act has been ordered to be set aside.

2. This appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 5.3.2008; however, at the time of admitting the appeal, no questions of law appear to have been formulated. A perusal of the memorandum of appeal shows that the appellant has proposed the following questions, which are stated to be substantial questions of law:-

"(a) In light of the facts of present case and in view of the definition of the term "employee" defined in Section 2(9), whether the Directors of Private Limited Company, who is managing affairs of his company and who has been withdrawing salary from the respondent-company and who has been doing exclusively activities mainly in connection with the business activities of the respondent company, can be, for the purpose of coverage, considered as an employee or not and whether payments made to them as remuneration will qualify for contributions towards ESI fund and whether the employees, who are working inside the premises of hotels but whose names have not been shown in muster roll of the respondent company but mainly employed to do the work in connection of the respondent company be considered as employees of the opponent company and whether the demand of the appellant for contribution of all the employees at specified rates on such payment is justified or not ?

(b) In view of the provisions of section 77 to be read with section 75 of the E.S.I. Act, it is right and justified of the E.S.I. Court to entertain the application of the opponent herein filed almost after 8 years i.e. from the date of issuance of C-11 notice dated 16.10.1995 intimating the coverage from the date 22.2.1994 when the opponent was provisionally covered and whether it is right and justified on part of the respondent to challenge the coverage at the time of recovery stage i.e. at very belated stage ?

(c) In facts of present case and in view of the definition under section 1(5), whether the provisions of E.S.I. Act be made applicable to the present respondent ? And cannot the respondent be said to be liable to pay contribution towards E.S.I. contribution?

(d) Whether the E.S.I. Court is right and justified in replying the issues No.1, 2, 4 and 6 in affirmative and issues No.3 and 5 in negative and whether the impugned judgment and order is right, justified and sustainable in law and/or in facts of present case ?

(e) Whether the diverse findings and conclusions of the E.S.I. Court are right and justified and based on evidence obtaining on record or they are contrary to the weight of evidence on record and whether the E.S.I. Court is right and justified in ignoring or not giving opportunity to lead the evidence of the appellant witnesses before the E.S.I. Court ?

(f) Is the E.S.I. Court justified in not relying on the Inspector's report and Surveyor's report, which was relied upon by the appellant herein?

(g) In view of section 77(1-A) of the E.S.I. Act, can E.S.I. Court restrain the appellant corporation to invoke the power under section 45A to recover the dues of contribution and/or interest and/or damages, as no provisions of limitation is applicable to recover the abovementioned dues from the employer ?"

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent herein filed an application under section 75(1) and (2) of the E.S.I. Act before the E.S.I. Court stating that it was runn