JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharm A, J. (Oral) :- Admit. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally and disposed of in the following terms. 3. The appellant, Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) has challenged the order dated 4th December, 1996 whereby the Employees State Insurance Court. Himachal Pradesh at Shim la has allowed the application of the respondent-employer for re-inspection of the entire record for the period April 1984 to December 1984 and lo make re- assessment of the employers contribution. Further at the time of passing (he impugned order, a statement was made by the learned counsel for the respondent -employer as well as the Manager of the respondent -firm that the reassessment made after, inspection of the record would be final and irrevocable. The Employees State Insurance Court has also called for the report of rc-assessment and adjourned the hearing. 4. It is not in dispute that the Corporation in exercise of powers under Section 45-A of the Employees State Insurance Act (hereinafter called the Act) made best assessment order dated 6th January 1986 and determined the contribution of the respondent-employer for the period April 1984 to December 1984 as Rs.27737.80 P. Feeling aggrieved the respondent - employer moved an application under Section 75 read with Section 77 of the Act challenging the best assessment order dated 6th January 1986 which is being tried by t he Employees State Insurance Court. In those proceedings, the respondent -employer has produced its evidence and the appellant- Corporation examined one witness on 4th December 1996 when the impugned order was passed on its application without giving an opportunity to the appellant - Corporation to file its reply. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Corporation has urged that under sub-section (2) of section 45-A of the Act, the best assessment order passed by the appellant- Corporation is sufficient proof of its claim under Section 75 and by the impugned order the best assessment order has been implidly set aside and the whole ease is re-opened which is not permissible under any provision of the Act. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent - employer has supported the impugned order and has stated that the impugned order was passed by the Employees State Insurance Court after satisfying itself that no reasonable opportunity was granted to the respondent - employer before making the best assessment order dated 6th January 1986. 6. After giving our best consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the impugned order deserve to be set aside being illegal and unjust. When the proceedings under Section 73 read with Section 77 of the Act before the Employees State Insurance Court are at advance stage inasmuch as the parties have adduced their evidence and the matter is to be finally heard and decided, there was no justification for allowing the application of the respondent-employer for re-inspection of the record forth relevant period and thereby setting aside the best assessment order dated 6th January 1986 and re-opening the whole case. The learned counsel for the respondent - employer has not been able to point out any provision under which the Employer State insurance Court has the power and jurisdiction to allow such an application for re- inspection of the record for which the best assessment ha already been passed. The Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 7th November, 1986 passed in Civil Appeal No; 2733 of 1980 had an occasion to consider various provisions of the Act including Section 45-A and 75 of the Ac wherein it is held "When there was dereliction of duty on the employer to either register itself with the Corporation under the Act or when there is failure to deposit the contribution with the account of the Corporation towards employer" am employees contribution as envisaged herein before, the corporation is empower© to make best assessment judgment under section 45-A and call upon the employer to deposit the amount with the Corporation." It is further observed by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court that Though Section 75 of the Act does not envisage as to who has to approach the Insurance Court, by necessary implication when the employer denies the liability or applicability of the provisions of the Act or the quantum of the contribution to be deposited by the employer, it is for him to approach the Insurance Court and seek adjudication. It is not for the Corporation in each case whenever there is a dispute to go to the Insurance Court and have the dispute adjudicated. Otherwise, the Act would become unworkable and defeat the object and purpose of the Act," 7. In view of the observations of the Supreme Court and in the facts and circumstances of this case we do not find any justification for the Employee Slate Insurance Court to pass the impugned order and thereby nullify the proceedings pending before it. In the result, the present appeal is accepted an the impugned order dated 4th December 1986.is set aside and the Employee State Insurance Court is directed to proceed with the case under Section 7 read with Section 77 of the Act pending before it and complete it within a period of two months. The parties will appear before the said court on 18th August 1997. The record is sent immediately. No order as to costs.