1. This is an appeal under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 challenging the judgment and order dated 27.06.2002 passed by the learned Employees State Insurance Court of Upper Assam at Dibrugarh in ESI Case No. 4 of 2001. The appeal was admitted on 11.02.2003 but no substantial question of law was framed which was required under Section 82 of the Act. The learned counsel for the parties are accordingly heard and thereupon following substantial question of law is framed:

“Whether the impugned judgment and order passed by the Employees State Insurance Court is vitiated for non-consideration of the materials on record?”

2. I have heard Mr. K.K. Nandi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. B. Sarma on behalf of the respondent on this substantial question of law.

3. Before deciding the substantial question of law framed in this case, it is necessary to narrate the bare minimum facts based on which the present appeal has arisen. Respondent, Assam Gold Tea (P) Ltd. is a company under the Companies Act engaged in tea manufacturing. An Inspector of the ESI Corporation visited the factory of respondent company and thereafter submitted a report on 02.05.2000 stating that the respondent company is engaged in manufacturing process of tea since 03.03.1996 to 22.04.2000 by engaging 25 whole time employees and so it comes within the purview of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, but the subject factory was not registered under the Act and no action was taken by the employer as required by the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred as ‘the ESI Act’). Based on the report, the Regional Director of ESI Corporation issued notice to the respondent company for implementation of the ESI Act and also to make a payment of Rs. 82,875/- by notice dated 20.08.2001. Situated thus, the respondent company approached jurisdictional insurance Court on 11.09.2001 whereupon ESI Case No. 4 of 2001 was registered. It was the case of the respondent company that it is only a seasonal factory and so it is not covered by the provision of the ESI Act. It is prayed thereby that assessment and demand made by defendant be adjudged illegal, arbitrary, void ab initio, etc.

4. On being summoned the appellant submitted a written statement denying the allegation made in the plaint and claimed that the respondent company is engaged in manufacturing process throughout the year. The appellant in the written statement supported the claim of Rs. 82,875/- and prayed that the case be dismissed.

5. Upon such rival contention of the parties, the employees insurance Court framed the following issue:

“Whether the factory exclusively engaged in manufacturing of tea and working throughout the year seized to be seasonable factory?”

6. Respondent herein examined as many as one witness and produced as many as twelve documents. Appellant herein also examined one witness as DW1 and exhibited four documents including Inspection Report (Ext. C), Demand of Notice, etc. After perusal of the materials, learned Employees State Insurance Court passed a judgment on 27.06.2002 holding that respondent company is a seasonal factory and is not covered by the provision of the ESI Act. It is this judgment which has been brought under challenge in the present appeal under Section 82 of the ESI Act, 1948.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment what is conspicuous is that the learned insurance Court passed the impugned judgment in six paragraphs in which there is recital of the cases of the parties in the two paragraphs. In the fourth paragraph only a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been considered and then in paragraph six a one line observation has been made holding that respondent company is a seasonal factory within the meaning of Section 2(19) of the ESI Act, 1948. In so doing, no oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties ha