JUDGMENT :

Vipul M. Pancholi, J.

Present appeal is filed by the original applicant against the judgment and order dated 18.10.1994 passed by the Employees State Insurance Court, Ahmedabad ('the ESI Court' for short) in ESI Application No. 50 of 1991, by which, the ESI Court has dismissed the application of the present appellant.

2. Brief facts of the present case are as under:

2.1 That the applicant filed an application being ESI Application No. 50 of 1991 under Section 75 of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 ('ESI Act' for short) before the ESI Court, wherein, the applicant has mainly contended that he is carrying on his business as commission agent and dealing in products like tomato catchup, bournvita, cadbaury chocolates, blue cherry blossom shoe polish etc. 15 to 16 employees were engaged. However, in the said premises, neither any manufacturing activity has been carried on, nor the aforesaid items were preserved in the cold storage. In fact, there is no cold storage or cold room in the said premises and therefore provisions of ESI Act is not applicable to the applicant. When the ESI Inspector called for the record and information from the applicant in the prescribed form, such details were submitted to the said Inspector. After verifying the record, it was decided that provisions of ESI Act is not applicable to the applicant. Communication dated 12.05.1989 was also sent by the Employees Insurance Corporation ('the Corporation' for short), whereby, the applicant was informed that the applicant is uncovered under the ESI Act.

2.2 Thereafter, once again the Inspector of the Corporation visited the premises of the applicant. Necessary details were given to him in July 1990. Thereafter, the respondent Corporation informed the applicant by communication dated 20.03.1991, whereby, the order dated 12.05.1989, whereby the applicant was uncovered under the ESI Act was cancelled. In the said communication, the Corporation informed the applicant that Air-conditioner machine is used in the room, which can be said to be a 'cold store room' and therefore ESI Act is applicable to the applicant. In response to the said communication, the applicant informed to the Corporation by letter dated 06.06.1991 that Air-conditioner machine is used in the office and the said Air-conditioner machine is not used for the purpose of storage of goods or any articles and therefore Air-conditioner machine cannot be termed as cold store room as alleged by the Corporation. All the necessary details were supplied by the applicant to the Corporation. Thus, in the said application, the applicant prayed that order dated 20.03.1991 passed by the Corporation be quashed.

2.3 ESI Court issued the notice to the Corporation. The Corporation filed its reply vide Exh.8, in which, it has been mainly contended that the Inspector of the Corporation examined the record of the applicant and thereafter issued C-11 notice dated 13/15-10-87 covering the applicant's establishment under Section 1(5) with effect from 01.03.1983. Applicant failed to comply the said notice and therefore, the Corporation issued C-18 notice dated 05.10.1988 on ad-hoc basis and demanded Rs.62,278/- for the period between 01.03.1983 to 31.03.1988. Subsequently, the Area Insurance Inspector of the Corporation conducted inspection of the applicant in February, 1989. Thereafter Area Insurance Inspector also recommended for un-coverage with effect from 01.01.1985 after verifying the record. Therefore the order dated 12.05.1989 was passed, whereby, applicant establishment was uncovered with effect from 01.01.1985. However, it was also added that in case the information supplied by the applicant is found incorrect, the applicant will render liable himself to legal action.

2.4 Once again the Area Insurance Inspector visited the premises of the applicant on 02.09.1990, wherein, he has observed that the applicant is using Air-conditioner as cold storage for preservation of chocolates and other food items. The applic