DIPAK MISRA, J. ( 1 ) BY this Writ Petition preferred under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india the Petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated December 14, 2000 passed by the presiding Officer, E. I. /labour Court Satna, contained in Annexure P/1. A further prayer has been made to reconsider the matter and the applications submitted by the petitioner as contained in the Annexures P/2 and P/3. ( 2 ) THE facts as have been unfolded are that the petitioner is carrying on its business in the District of Satna of tractors and repairs of motor cycle. According to the writ petitioner he employed 15 to 17 employees and hence, his establishment is not covered within the provisions of the Employees' State insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The establishment of the petitioner was inspected by the Inspector of the respondent No. 2, the Regional Director, employees' State Insurance and the Inspector submitted a report indicating that the petitioner has employed more than 20 employees and, therefore, the establishment is covered under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner filed an application before the e. I. Court challenging the order passed by the respondent No. 2 under Section 76 of the act stating that his establishment was not covered under the E. S. I. Scheme. The respondent No. 1 framed issues and thereafter proceeded with the case for evidence. It has been put forth that the petitioner was examined before the respondent No. 1 but the relevant documents, namely, Cash Book and Ledger were not produced. Thereafter the application was filed as contained in the Annexure P/2 for production of the said documents and to prove the same. The said prayer was resisted by the respondent No. 2. Another application was also filed by the petitioner to permit him to cross-examine the Inspector on the basis of the documents filed by him. The said application was also opposed to by the respondent No. 2. The E. I. Court vide order dated December 14, 2000 rejected both the applications. It is urged in the petition that the reasons ascribed by the respondent No. 1 are not germane to the issue and hence, the order is vulnerable in law. The said application was also opposed to by the respondent No. 2. The E. I. Court vide order dated December 14, 2000 rejected both the applications. It is urged in the petition that the reasons ascribed by the respondent No. 1 are not germane to the issue and hence, the order is vulnerable in law. It is further averred that if an opportunity is not granted to the petitioner he would not be in a position to establish that his unit is not an establishment as per the provisions of the Act. It is also put forth that the documents were not available with the petitioner at the relevant time and hence, he was compelled to file an application for producing the same and also sought cross-examination of the witness. ( 3 ) A return has been filed by the respondent No. 2 contending, inter alia, that the petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merit and there was no justification for filing of the applications as contained in the annexures P/1 and P/2. It is also put forth that the petitioner was given numerous opportunities but he failed to produce the documents and avail the opportunity granted by the Court. It has been put forth that the order passed by the E. I. Court is justified in law. ( 4 ) I have heard Mr. R. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. D'silva, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. It is submitted by Mr. Gupta that the E. I. Court has not granted opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and hence, substantial justice has not been done and the petitioner has been deprived of putting forth his case. It is further urged by him that the petitioner had given appropriate explanation for not producing the documents in time. Mr. D'silva, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, in his turn, has contended that the order passed by the e. I. Court clearly reflects that number of opportunities were granted to the petitioner. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the order passed by the respondent No. 2 is absolutely sustainable and deserves stamp of approval of this Court. ( 5 ) TO appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, I have carefully perused the order passed by the respondent No. 1. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the order passed by the respondent No. 2 is absolutely sustainable and deserves stamp of approval of this Court. ( 5 ) TO appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, I have carefully perused the order passed by the respondent No. 1. On a scrutiny of the same, it appears that number of opportunities were granted to the petitioner to produce the documents and for adducing the evidence. The E. I. Court has found fault with the petitioner for taking adjournments on many occasions. On consideration of the reasons given by the E. I. Court and on appreciating the grounds raised in the writ petition, I am of the considered opinion, that one more opportunity should have been granted to the petitioner to produce the documents and further to cross-examine the Inspector in question. It is worth noting here mat this Court is not oblivious of the fact that the petitioner had taken number of adjournments. In view of this the balance has to be struck. Accordingly the order passed by the E. I. Court is quashed and it is directed that the petitioner will be granted one more opportunity to produce the documents as mentioned in the Annexure P/2. He shall be permitted to cross-examine the concerned inspector as per Annexure P/3 subject to payment of cost of Rs. 3,500. 00 (Three Thousand Five Hundred only) to the respondent No. 2 within a period of six weeks. If the cost is not paid within the time stipulated the order passed vide annexure P/1 shall stand revived. ( 6 ) THE writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. .