D.N. UPADHYAY, J.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 15th July, 2006 passed by Presiding Officer-cum-E.S.I. Court, Ranchi in connection with E.S.I. Case No.14 of 2002, whereby petition filed by the appellant under Section 75(1)a and g of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act') has been dismissed and order dated 11th February, 2002 passed by the Deputy Director, E.S.I. Corporation under Section 45-A has been held legal and enforceable.

2. The case of the appellant, in brief, is that the appellant is registered under Bihar Shops and Establishment Act and it provides security services and private investigation. It is contended that number of employees in the establishment had never been more than ten, but the appellant in order to provide benefit to its employees and to get coverage under the Act has voluntarily applied for its registration with E.S.I. Corporation and agreed to abide by the Act and Rules envisaged under the Act. The appellant had been regularly depositing employees' contribution as well as contribution to be paid by the employer and returns were duly filed. Due to absence of staff, who had been dealing with the matter, contribution for the period from 1st September, 1995 to 31st March, 1996 and from 1st August, 1996 to 31st July, 1998 had not been deposited inadvertently. Further plea has been taken that numbers of employees at the relevant point of time were below ten and this fact was not taken note of by the respondents.

3. The Respondent-Deputy Director, E.S.I. Corporation, issued a notice dated 20th August, 1998 under Form-C 18, fixing date of personal appearance of the appellant on 24th September, 1998. It was submitted that no such notice was ever served upon the appellant and, therefore, it could not appear before the authority on 24th September, 1998.

4. The appellant wrote several letters, including the letters dated 23rd June, 2002 and 4th April, 2002, requesting the respondents for supply of copy of notice dated 20th August, 1998, but the Corporation and the Deputy Director did not respond. Thereafter, the appellant's authorized representative visited the office of the Regional Director for ascertaining the particulars and after computing the contribution to be paid by the employees and employer deposited the required amount even without deducting the employees' contribution for the period under dispute. The payments so made were communicated vide letter dated 17th September, 2002, but prior to that the Deputy Director, E.S.I. Corporation arbitrarily assessed the contribution amount and passed an order under Section 45-A of the Act on 11th February, 2002. The correspondences made by the appellant were kept in abeyance.

5. The Deputy Director further referred the matter to the Recovery Officer for initiation of recovery proceeding for a sum of Rs.1,05,477/- plus interest to the extent of Rs.70,485/- calculated up to 1st January, 2002. It was further pointed out that despite payment of contribution on 14th September, 2002, the Recovery Officer issued warrant of arrest on 12th September, 2002, directing the Superintendent of Police, Ranchi to arrest the proprietress of The Anapol Security & Investigation Services.

6. The appellant has challenged the legality of the order passed under Section 45-A, inter alia, on the ground that under the provisions of Section 45-A(1) Corporation was bound to give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant and notice dated 20th August, 1998 was never received by the appellant. Repeated requests were made for supply of copy of the said notice, but the Corporation had not given any heed to those requests. Without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing, the order passed under Section 45-A is arbitrary in nature and that need to be set aside. It was submitted that the Deputy Director was not authorized to pass order under Section 45-A of the Act and on that score alone the order dated 11th Febr