3. Respondent/Establishment filed petition under Section 75 of the 1948 Act impugning order passed by appellant, dated 27.01.1994 claiming the same to be illegal, null and void on the ground that the respondent/Establishment was not covered under ESI Act and the report submitted by the Inspector was not in accordance with law and thus ought not have been relied upon by the Corporation to serve demand notice upon the respondent.

4. The other issue that was raised, was w.r.t. tailoring not being a manufacturing process and that the regular employees being only 4, the remaining casual employees ought not have been taken into consideration.

5. The ESI Court while adjudicating upon issue w.r.t. the respondent/Establishment being covered under the Act, found that the report Exhibit R-1 signed by RW-1, who was employed as Insurance Inspector, was not in accordance with law. The Inspector’s report being not as prescribed under the statute and the rules framed thereunder, the report Exhibit R-1, cannot be relied upon. The other two issues were found covered against the establishment.

6. Counsel for the appellants has assailed the findings recorded by the ESI Court. He submits that the onus was