C. M. Nayar, J. ( 1 ) THE present appeal is directed against the order ofshri P. K. Dham, Judge, Employees State Insurance Court, Delhi, in E. S. I. C. case No. 82 of 1989. ( 2 ) THE appellant filed a petition under Section 75 of the Employeesstate Insurance Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the respondentalleging that the appellant firm is a partnership concern and is doing thebusiness of Drapers and Tailors at 1 and 2 Municipal Market, Yusuf Zaimarket, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The appellant had been maintainingthe proper records of the employees and payment of wages and that theinspector of the respondent corporation had visited the appellant-firm and thena letter dated 26/02/1986, was received from the Regional Director ofthe respondent Corporation, which was replied on 18/03/1986. The appellant-firm further contended that it did not constitute a factory within themeaning of Section 2 (12) of the Act and there were never employed morethan 10 persons, at the premises at any time; that the actual number of employees during the relevant period was 6 only and not 14 ; that the appellant hasnever used power for any manufacturing job and the demand of Rs. 8,984. 15, forthe period November 1980 to 10/12/1981, raised by the respondent Corporation was therefore, illegal and without jurisdiction. ( 3 ) THE respondent Corporation contested the pleas, raised by theappellant and stated that the Inspector visited the factory premises of theappellant on 10/12/1980, for survey and submitted his report along withletter of the appellant categorically confessing that the appellant had employed14 persons for wages on 1/11/1980, and power was used for themanufacturing purposes. The establishment of the appellant-firm was coveredin view of the notification, issued under Section 1 (5) of the Act and not undersection 2 (12) of the Act; that the dues have been legally calculated. Theappellant did not produce the record, in spite of several visits by the Inspectorand after service of notice, the respondent Corporation had no other alternativebut to calculate the contribution on the basis of the informationav ailable withthe respondent. ( 4 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, was following issues were framed: 1. Whether the demand raised by the respondent is illegal and without jurisdiction ?2. Relief. ( 4 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, was following issues were framed: 1. Whether the demand raised by the respondent is illegal and without jurisdiction ?2. Relief. ( 5 ) THE learned Judge on the basis of the evidence on record, came tothe conclusion that the respondent Corporation has rightly passed the orderunder Section 45-A of the Act, on the basis of the information available with it. The reports and the other evidence on record also revealed the names of 14persons, who were found working in the establishment of the appellant and theuse of the electric presses in the stitching of the clothes by the employees of theappellant was also admitted. The appellant has not proved on record the attendance and wages register to show that only 4 to 6 workers were employed during the relevant period. The evidence on record was considered by the Courtand a finding of fact was arrived at to hold that the establishment of the appellant was covered under the provisions of the Act for the relevant period. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant, contends that thefinding of fact is based on evidence, which is no admissible and the appellantfirm did produce the relevant record and the same has not been properly considered by the Court. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the respondent corporation, on theother hand, contends that an appeal under Section 81 of the Act, from an orderof Employees Insurance Court only will lie, if it involves a substantial questionof law and no such question arises for consideration of this Court in the presentproceedings. ( 8 ) I have considered the contentions of both the Counsel and I aminclined to accept the submission of learned Counsel for there spondent Corporation. The Court below has carefully considered all the evidence on recordand correctly arrived at the findings that the appellant firm did employ morethan 14 persons and there was use of power in the manufacturing process. It isnot open for this Court to reappraise the evidence on record and the finding-of fact, as recorded cannot be interfered with. ( 9 ) THE appeal, as a consequence, is dismissed. There shall be noorder as to costs. This will be, however, without prejudice to the rights of theappellant firm for the subsequent years, which are not covered by theimpugned judgment.