CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the appellant-establishment to challenge the order dated February 13, 1997 in e. s. i. Application No. 41/92 passed by the e. i. Court, Bangalore. In passing the said Order, the e. i. Court while allowing the said application filed by the appellant-applicant-establishment held that the respondent-corporation was entitled to recover the e. s. i, contribution of Rs. 13,719. 00 as against the original contribution of Rs. 18,417. 00 demanded for the period from june, 1990 to march, 1992 in respect of certain number of workers and further in respect of two other workers by name, Sri bhaskar (for the period from march, 1991 to may, 1992) and yet another worker by name, Sri pandian (for the month of may, 1992 ). ( 2 ) THE appellant-establishment herein is represented by the learned counsel, Sri s. v. Shastry, whereas the respondent- corporation is represented by the learned counsel, Smt. M. p. Geethadevi. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant-establishment, Sri shastry had taken me through the impugned order under challenge. While urging the grounds made out in the instant appeal, it was argued by Sri shastry at the outset that, when there was no order that came to be passed under Section 45-a of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), it would not have passed the order under challenge before the e. i. Court to recover a sum of Rs. 18,417. 00. It was also argued by him that when the application of the appellant-establishment came to be allowed holding that the respondent-corporation was entitled to receive the contribution of Rs. 13,719. 00, the e. i. Court would have as well set aside that order impugned before it. ( 4 ) THEREFORE, Sri shastry prayed that the impugned order passed by the e. i. Court be modified to say that the original order dated June 16, 1992 under challenge before the e. i. Court be set aside. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent-corporation, Smt. Geethadevi, on the other side argued that, the appellant- establishment at best would have filed a review petition before the e. i. Court and further according to her the appellant- establishment could not have recourse to the instant appeal. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent-corporation, Smt. Geethadevi, on the other side argued that, the appellant- establishment at best would have filed a review petition before the e. i. Court and further according to her the appellant- establishment could not have recourse to the instant appeal. In support of her argument, Smt. Geethadevi had also cited the decisions reported in AIR 1964 SC 877 and AIR 1982 SC 1249 . It was also argued by her that in view of the amendment to the provision in Section 1 (6) of the Act, if an establishment were covered under the Act, the same has to be construed in law as the one continued to be covered under the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the number of employees had come down less than required number. ( 6 ) IN reply, Sri shastry argued that in view of specific provision in Rule 47 of the Karnataka employees' state insurance rules, the question of getting the order reviewed by the e. i. Court did not arise. ( 7 ) I have carefully considered the argument advanced. Before taking the merit part of the instant appeal, i feel it proper to deal with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-establishment, Sri shastry with regard to the power of the e. i. Court to review its own order. In this context, it is relevant to quote the provision in Rule 47 of the Karnataka employees' state insurance rules, the same reads as hereunder:"47. Provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) to apply.- in respect of matters relating to procedure or admission of evidence for which no specific provision is made in these rules, the Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), including the rules made thereunder and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), shall, so far as may be, apply to proceedings under the act. " ( 8 ) FROM the above provision of the Rule, it appears to me that the e. i. Court has got power to review its own Order, for, in the said rules, it is made clear that in respect of the matters relating to the procedure or admission of evidence for which no specific provision is made, the Provisions in C. P. C. Are applicable. It was not the argument of Sri shastry that specific provision had been made in the state insurance rules in the matter of power of review of the order once passed by the e. i. Court. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, it is obvious that in the event, there being no provision in the rules for reviewing the orders once passed by the e. i. Court. , in my considered view, the provision in C. P. C. With regard to the power to review of the orders passed by the e. i. Court is very well applicable. ( 10 ) AS i see in the instant appeal, the scope is very limited, inasmuch as the grievance of the appellant-establishment is that the order that was under challenge before the e. i. Court was not set aside, no matter that it had allowed the application filed by the appellant- establishment, i find sufficient force in the argument of Sri shastry in that regard. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the respondent-corporation that it had challenged that impugned order before this court. Therefore, i feel that the instant appeal has to be allowed limited to set aside the order dated June 16, 1992 in No. Kar. ins. ii:53. 2389-112, the one under challenge before the e. i, court. ( 11 ) IN the result, the instant appeal is allowed in part inasmuch as the impugned order dated February 13, 1997 in e. s. i. Application No. 41/1992 passed by the e. i. Court stands set aside. ( 12 ) IT is made clear that the rest of the order that was passed by the e. i. Court is hereby held to be good. It is therefore obvious that the appellant-establishment has to comply with the order of the e. i. Court in the matter of payment of the e. s. i, contribution in tune with the impugned order within a period of one month from this day. --- *** --- .