J U D G M E N T

The instant appeal has been filed challenging the order of the Employees' State Insurance Court (Labour Court), Madurai, dated 02.09.2021, passed in E.S.I.O.P.No.56 of 2010, which confirmed the order dated 30.08.2010 passed by the respondent claiming a contribution amount of Rs.62,929/- for the period from April 1990 to March 1999.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows: (a)The appellant is covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 [hereinafter referred to as the 'ESI Act'].

(b)The respondent issued a Show Cause Notice in Form C-18 dated 13.07.1999, calling upon the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.62,929/- as contribution for the period from April

1990 to March 1999.

(c)The respondent subsequently passed an order under Section 45A of the ESI Act on 17.04.2001.

(d)The appellant filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.13385 of

2001 challenging the order of the respondent, mainly on the ground that the respondent had not provided sufficient opportunity to the appellant to respond to the notice.

(e)This Court, by an order dated 10.06.2010, set aside the order passed by the respondent and directed the respondent to pass a fresh order under Section 45A of the ESI Act after giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant.

(f) Thereafter, the respondent passed an order under Section

45A of the ESI Act on 30.08.2010, calling upon the appellant to pay the contribution of Rs.62,929/-.

(g)The appellant challenged the said order before the Employees' State Insurance Court (Labour Court), Madurai, in E.S.I.O.P.No.56 of 2010. The ESI Court dismissed the petition.

(h)Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order dated 30.08.2010 passed by the respondent is barred by limitation, as it was passed beyond the period of five years from the date on which the contribution became payable; that the respondent had not provided sufficient opportunity and had not furnished the Inspection Report, which is mandatory; and that they are not liable to pay contributions since the employees were not permanent employees but daily wage labourers, and therefore cannot be treated as employees of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Managing Director, Hassan Co-operative Milk Producer's Society Union Limited Vs. The Assistant Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corporation, reported in (2010)

11 SCC 537.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, submitted that a copy of the Inspection Report was served on the appellant, as could be seen by the endorsement made in Ex.R6, the copy of the Inspection Report; that the appellant had not produced any documents to substantiate that the employees were daily wage workers and not permanently employed by the appellant; that in any case, both the points raised by the appellant were factual in nature and cannot be interfered with in the absence of any substantial questions of law involved; that the point raised by the appellant regarding the period of limitation cannot be countenanced, since it was at the instance of the appellant that this Court, in the Writ Petition, directed the respondent to pass a fresh order after giving notice to the appellant and that the order of this Court in the Writ Petition was passed on 10.06.2010, and within two months, the order was passed by the respondent.

5. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the rival submissions.

6. This Court finds that Ex.R6, which is the copy of the Inspection Report, contains an endorsement, which reveals that it was served on the appellant. The ESI Court also rendered a finding that all the material documents were served on the appellant. In any case, it is not a question of law for this Court to interfere with the order in an appeal under Section 82 of the ESI Act. Likewise, the factual finding rendered by the ESI Court that the respondent had est