CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the employees' state insurance corporation to challenge the order dated April 2, 1997, in e. s. i. Application No. 13 of 1990 passed by the employees' insurance court, in passing whereof, the said court, while allowing the application, had set aside the order dated March 27, 1989, in No. Kar. ins. i. 53-7907-91 passed by the appellant-employees' state insurance corporation under Section 45-a of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, henceforth in brief referred to as "the act". ( 2 ) THE appellant-corporation is represented by its counsel, ms, geethadevi, whereas the contesting respondent No. 1 having been served with notice had remained absent before the court. Respondents nos. 2 and 3, being the state authorities, also having been served with notice, had remained absent before the court. The learned additional government advocate, Sri ashok mensinkai, being present before the court had taken notice for the said respondents. Accordingly, he is permitted to file memo of appearance for the said respondents within a period of four weeks. Learned counsel for the appellant-employees' state insurance corporation, ms. Geethadevi, had taken me through the impugned order under challenge. She had also taken me through the facts of the case. According to her, the employees' insurance court would not have interfered with the impugned order passed under Section 45-a of the act. While taking me through para 9 of the impugned Order, she had also argued that issue nos. 1 and 2 were addressed to respondent no. l-company inasmuch as it is for respondent No. 1-company to prove the said issues framed by the employees' insurance court. It was further argued by her that respondent No. 1 -company had not produced the relevant books of account such as ledger, account books, cash book, vouchers, attendance register in respect of the temporary workmen, wage register in respect of both the permanent and temporary workmen to prove the above issues before the employees' insurance court and as such the employees' insurance court, according to her, would have decided the said issues as against respondent No. L-company. She had also pointed out that on the other hand the employees' insurance court, during the course of the judgment had observed that the order under challenge before it was that the inspection report did not support the case of the corporation to show that the establishment of respondent No. L-company was very well covered under the act. She also submitted that by the way the employees' insurance court had reached the conclusion, it appeared as if the burden was cast on the employees' state insurance corporation to prove that the establishment of respondent No. L-company was one coverable under the Act, no matter that the application before the employees' insurance court was not filed by it. ( 3 ) THEREFORE, she submitted that the impugned order passed by the employees' insurance court be set aside in restoring the order passed by the appellant-employees' state insurance corporation. At the outset, I have to observe here that respondent No. 1 -company, being the contesting respondent, did not choose to contest the instant appeal before this court and that despite service of notices on it, it had remained absent before court. ( 4 ) BEFORE proceeding further, i feel it appropriate to set out the issues framed in the esi application in question by the employees' insurance court. To quote the same, the same read as hereunder:" (1) whether the applicant proves that it has employed less than ten persons and, therefore, not coverable under the act ? (2) whether the applicant further proves that the Order, Annexure-C , claiming contribution of Rs. 6,025 for the wage period April 4, 1988, to September 30, 1988, is, therefore, not sustainable. (3) to what relief the parties are entitled ?" ( 5 ) ON a simple reading of the above issues framed by the employees' insurance court, it is not difficult for one to say that the burden was cast on the respondent no. 1-company to prove the said issues framed by the employees' insurance court. As i see, as argued by learned counsel for the appellant-employees' state insurance corporation that respondent No. 1-company did not produce the relevant books for the purpose of proving the above two issues framed by the employees' insurance court. 1-company to prove the said issues framed by the employees' insurance court. As i see, as argued by learned counsel for the appellant-employees' state insurance corporation that respondent No. 1-company did not produce the relevant books for the purpose of proving the above two issues framed by the employees' insurance court. It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of the inspection by the inspector of the employees' state insurance corporation the ledger, cash book vouchers, attendance register (temporary workmen), wage register for temporary and permanent workmen, esi certificate and partnership deed were not at all produced before him by respondent no. 1-company. Even before the employees' insurance court, respondent No. 1-company failed to produce the abovesaid records to prove the abovesaid two issues framed by the employees' insurance court. Even if it is true that the establishment of respondent No. 1 was not covered under the factories act to maintain the above records, it was very well permissible for them to produce the records once they had to maintain under Section 13-a of the payment of wages Act, 1936, giving such particulars of persons employed by them, the work performed by them, wages paid to them, etc. Even if the case of respondent No. 1-company is that their establishment was exempted from maintaining the records as contemplated under the Provisions of the labour laws (exemption from furnishing returns and maintaining registers by certain establishments) Act, 1988, they had to maintain in lieu of such registers, register in forms nos. B, c. D and e in respect of their establishment. In the instant case in hand, respondent No. 1 -company not only did not produce the records referred to above, besides they did not produce the register as contemplated under Section 13-a of the payment of wages Act, 1936, or registers in forms nos. B, c, d and e in lieu of the above registers as per Section 4 of the labour laws (exemption from furnishing returns and maintaining registers by certain establishments) Act, 1988. Therefore, it has to be taken that respondent No. 1-company failed to produce the relevant records to prove the above issues framed by the employees' insurance court. B, c, d and e in lieu of the above registers as per Section 4 of the labour laws (exemption from furnishing returns and maintaining registers by certain establishments) Act, 1988. Therefore, it has to be taken that respondent No. 1-company failed to produce the relevant records to prove the above issues framed by the employees' insurance court. ( 6 ) LET apart, as per clause (2) of Section 45-a of the Act, it is made clear that an order made by the corporation under sub-section (1) shall be sufficient proof of the claim of the corporation under Section 75 or for recovery of the amount determined by it. Therefore, it is clear that under clause (2) of Section 45-a of the Act, there is a presumption under law that an order under sub-section (1) of Section 45-a of the act was true and correct. Hence, it is obvious that the question of proving the said issues by the employees' state insurance corporation before the employees' insurance court did not arise at all. In the instant case in hand, respondent No. 1-company had failed to prove issues nos. 1 and 2 as above. In the said view of the matter, i feel that the employees' insurance court was in error in allowing the application of respondent No. 1-company in setting aside the order dated March 27, 1989, in No. Kar. ins. i 53-7907-91 passed by the appellant-employees' state insurance corporation holding that respondent No. 1-company was covered under the act. In the result, i pass the following: order the instant appeal filed by the appellant-employees' state insurance corporation stands allowed in the process the order dated March 27, 1989, in No. Kar. Ins. I. 53-7907-91 passed under Section 45-a of the act one under challenge by respondent No. 1-company before the employees' insurance court stands restored to enure to the benefit of the appellant employees' state insurance corporation. Let respondent no. 1-company pay the esi contribution demanded by the employees' state insurance corporation as per the order passed under Section 45 of the act within a period of two months from the date of passing of this Order, of course, together with the interest thereon in accordance with law. --- *** --- .