JUDGMENT
Ranjan Gogoi, J.
1. Heard Mr. B.R. Dey, learned Counsel for the appellant. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
2. This appeal under Section 82 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 is directed against a judgment and order dated July 14, 1997 passed by the E.S.I. Court, Upper Assam, Dibrugarh in E.S.I. Case No. 3 of 1994. By the aforesaid judgment and order dated July 14, 1997, the learned Court below while holding that the respondent unit was covered by the provisions of the Act for the period after April 1, 1996 had thought it proper to interfere with the demands raised for the preceding periods commencing from November 1, 1990 and provisionally quash the same. While doing so, the learned Court below, however, gave liberty to the E.S.I. Corporation to proceed in respect of the aforesaid earlier period by calling for the relevant records and registers of the Unit of the respondent and, thereafter, to issue notice of contribution and proceed in the matter under Section 45-A of the Act.
3. It would be relevant to notice at this stage that for the period commencing from November 1, 1990 upto April 1, 1996, details of which are available in the judgment under challenge, the liability of the respondent to be covered by the provisions of the Act and the demand of contributions of different amounts was disputed by the respondent by contending that the reports of the Inspectors who had conducted the inspections were not exhibited in the course of the proceedings before the learned Trial Court and the Inspectors were also not examined as witnesses. However, for the period April 1, 1996 onwards the respondent had admitted its liability to be covered by the provisions of the Act. In such circumstances, while declaring the liability of the respondent to be covered by the provisions of the Act for the period April 1, 1996 onwards, the learned Court below took the view that as no material evidence was forthcoming to justify the decision of the Corporation to extend the provisions of the Act to the respondent for the earlier period, the demands raised on account of contribution for the said earlier periods should be provisionally interfered with liberty to the Corporation to proceed afresh in the matter.
4. It is not known as to whether the Corporation had proceeded afresh in the matter by following the provisions of the Act and the directions issued by the learned Trial Court. However, as the findings of the learned Court below interfering with the demands raised for the earlier period is on the basis of the conclusion that no evidence was led by the Corporation and, furthermore, as liberty was granted to the Corporation to proceed afresh in the matter, I am of the view that the judgment and order dated July 14, 1997, passed by the learned E.S.I. Court, does not disclose any such substantial question of law which would require an authoritative pronouncement by the Court. Neither any prejudice was caused to the appellant Corporation as it was always open for the appellant to proceed in the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
5. In view of the foregoing discussions I am of the view that the judgment and order dated July 14, 1997 passed in E.S.I. Case No. 3 of 1994 would not require any interference. The appeal filed by the Corporation, therefore, is dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.