S Ramathilagam, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the decree and judgment of the City Civil Judge, Chennai passed in ESIOP No.24 of 1994.

2. The petitioner before the ESIOP is the Proprietor of Small Scale Industries Unit. The petitioner has stated that he is regularly complying the provisions of ESI Act from 1.6.1988 as the minimum number of employees required for coverage under the said Act. He had stated that on 22.7.1991, he received Form C-18 notice from the 1st respondent who is the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation to show cause as to why assessment should not be made as per the notice. The said notice also attached the calculation sheet. During the personal hearing, the petitioner has informed the respondent that he never employed 10 or more persons during the period from 26.10.1994 to 31.5.1988. Further, he could not produce the records such as Attendance Registers, Wages Registers and General Register for the said period as they were destroyed in the flood during the year 1989. But the balance sheet for the above said period was filed by the petitioner.

3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that these factors wh