H. BILLAPPA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the Orderdated Februaary 7, 2002 passed by the additional industrial tribunal and e. I. Court bangalore, in e. s. i. application No. 41/1987. Briefly stated the facts are as follows: the appellant is a private limited company engaged in designing, installation of AIR pollution control humidification and ventilation systems, it has its registered office at bangalore and branches at madras, coimbatore, bombay, delhi and calcutta. A notice dated October 13, 1986 was issued by the deputy regional director, informing the appellant company that the government, vide notification bearing No. Swl 371 lsi 81 dated January 5, 1985 has extended the provisions of the act to the other establishments with effect from January 27, 1985 and that the appellant company falls within the purview of Secrion 1 (5) of the act with effect from January 27, 1985 and therefore, it should take steps for registration of its employees. The appellant company submitted its reply dated October 22, 1986 to the said notice stating that the appellant company is not a shop, the strength of its employees is less than 20, it is not carrying any manufacturing process and the provisions of the act extended by the government are not applicable to the appellant company and hence it is not liable for registration under the e. s. i. act. Thereafter, show cause notice dated March 13, 1987 was issued by the deputy regional director stating that he has proposed to determine the amount of contribution payable in respect of 79 employees of the appellant company at Rs. 1,01,643. 77 under Secrion 45-a of the act, taking the contribution at 7. 25% of the assumed wages of Rs. 880. 00 per month, for the period from January 27, 1985 to September 30, 1986 and calling upon the appellant to show cause within 15 days as to why assessment should not be made as proposed. In response to the said notice Sri balashanmugham, the manager finance and accounts of the appellant company appeared before the deputy regional director on April 20, 1987 and submitted that the appellant company is not covered under the provisions of the act, as they have no manufacturing process. Appellant-company is not a shop, and the strength of the employees is less than 20 and hence not liable to pay the contribution. Appellant-company is not a shop, and the strength of the employees is less than 20 and hence not liable to pay the contribution. Thereafter, as contribution was not remitted and returns were not filed, the deputy regional director, by his Orderdated April 20, 1987 determined the contribution payable in respect of 79 employees, of the appellant company, for the period from January 27, 1985 to September 30, 1986 at Rs. 1,01,643. 77, taking the contribution, at 7. 25% of assumed wages of Rs. 880. 00 per month on ad hoc basis and directed to pay the said amount within 15 days. The appellant filed an application under Secrion 75 of the e. s. i. act in e. s. i. application No. 41/1987, before the additional industrial tribunal and e. i. court challenging the validity of the said Orderpassed by the deputy regional director. The e. i. court on appreciation of evidence by its Orderdated March 30, 1998 dismissed the said application holding that the employees of the appellant-company at bangalore and other units are covered under the ESI act. ( 2 ) THE appellant preferred an appeal before this court in mfa No. 3213/1998 challenging the said order. By Orderdated January 23, 2001, this court holding that the registered office at bangalore and all its branches are one unit and they are covered under ESI act, remanded the matter to the e. s. i. court, with a specific direction to determine the quantum of contribution, on the basis of factuals. The matter was remitted only to determine the quantum of contribution. ( 3 ) AFTER the matter was remanded to. The e. i. court, the appellant examined one witness Sri m. Balashanmugham aw-2 and produced three documents i. e. exhibits a. 23, a. 24 attendance-cum-salary registers and a. 25 statement regarding the salary particulars of employees of branch offices. The respondent did not adduce any evidence. The e. i. court on appreciation of evidence on record by its Orderdated Februaary 7, 2002, dismissed the application holding that the claim made by the corporation is proper. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the said Orderdated Februaary 7, 2002 passed by the e. i. court, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The respondent did not adduce any evidence. The e. i. court on appreciation of evidence on record by its Orderdated Februaary 7, 2002, dismissed the application holding that the claim made by the corporation is proper. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the said Orderdated Februaary 7, 2002 passed by the e. i. court, the appellant has preferred this appeal. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the specific direction by this court was to determine the quantum of contribution on the basis of factuals and the appellant after remand, examined one witness aw. 2 and produced three documents i. e. exhibits a-23, a-24 attendance-cum-salary registers and a-25 statement regarding the salary particulars of employees of branch offices and that the respondent has not adduced any evidence. In spite of that the e. I. Court has failed to determine the quantum of contribution on the basis of factuals. He submitted that without any valid reason the e. i. court has failed to place reliance on exhibits a-23, a-24 and a-25. He submitted that the e. I. Court has erred in not determining the quantum of contribution on the basis of factuals and hence the Orderpassed by the e. i. court is contrary to the direction of this court and hence not sustainable in law. Further placing reliance on the decision in the case of Escorts Ltd. V. Regional Director, e. s. i. c. ilr 1986 kar 3595 he submitted that having regard to the wide powers of the e. i. court, it ought to have remanded the matter to the concerned authority to determine the quantum of compensation on the basis of factuals or else it ought to have called for the documents and decided the quantum of contribution on the basis of factuals. The e. i. court had erred in not doing so. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Sahni Silk Mills (p) Ltd. And Another v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation 1994 (5) SCC 346 : 1994-ii-LLJ-1105 he submitted that reasonable opportunity should have been given by the e. i. court to produce the evidence. He also submitted that if an opportunity is given, the appellant will produce the original books of accounts, salary registers and attendance registers of the employees of the other branches. He also submitted that if an opportunity is given, the appellant will produce the original books of accounts, salary registers and attendance registers of the employees of the other branches. He submitted that as the e. i. court has not determined that quantum of contribution on the basis of factuals, the finding recorded by it is perverse and not sustainable in law. ( 6 ) PER contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case, the appeal is not maintainable in law. Further, he submitted that as factuals were not furnished by the appellant in spite of sufficient opportunity given to him, the e. i. court has rightly dismissed the application. Placing reliance on the decisions reported in the case of Modella Woolens Ltd. V. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and another 1994 supp (3) SCC 580 : 2001-iii-llj (suppl)-1427 he submitted that as the appellant did not come out with the correct amount which according to them is payable and proved nothing before the court, the e. i. court has accepted the claim made by the corporation as correct and in the circumstances of the case, it was justified in doing so. He also placed reliance on the decision in the case of regional director, E. S. I. Corporation v. P. R. Packaging Company and others 2001-LLJ-1584 (kant) and submitted that under sub-section (2) of Secrion 45-a of the ESI act there is a presumption under law that an Orderunder sub-section (1) of Secrion 45-a of the act was true and correct and hence question of respondent proving the issue before the e. i. court did not arise. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Zenna Sorabji and others v. Mirabelle Hotel Company (p) Ltd. AIR 1981 bom. 446 he submitted that exhibits a-23, a-24 and a-25 are not authenticated documents and hence the e. i. court has rightly not placed reliance on those documents. Further he submitted that the Orderpassed by the e. i. court is justified in law and does not call for interference. ( 7 ) I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Further he submitted that the Orderpassed by the e. i. court is justified in law and does not call for interference. ( 7 ) I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 8 ) IN the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel, the question of law that arises for consideration is:"whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the specific directions by this court to determine the quantum of contribution on the basis of factuals, the Orderpassed by the e. i. court dismissing the application holding that the claim made by the corporation is proper is perverse and not sustainable in law?" ( 9 ) THIS court in mfa No. 3213/1998 remitted the matter with specific direction to determine the quantum of contribution on the basis of factuals. It is relevant to extract para-15 of the judgment which reads as follows: 15. Though the e. I. Court had reached the opinion that head office and units are one entity, it had failed to consider the question of quantum of contribution to be paid. The contention of the corporation before the e. i. court was that they have taken the wages of each employee as Rs. 800. 00 between the period January 27, 1985 to September 30, 1986. However, the trial court failed to say whether the demand of Rs. 1 lakh and odd by the respondent-corporation towards the contribution for the abovesaid period was right or wrong. In other words, it had not determined the actual quantum of contribution to be paid and how it should be worked out having regard to the fact that main office is at bangalore and its units are at different places outside karnataka. The mode of payment of contribution can be worked out as provided under the act and the Regulation s. In view of the above discussion and the reasoning only so far as the determination of quantum of contribution the matter deserves to be remanded to the e. i. court concerned, as the same has to be worked out on the basis of the factuals. So far as the coverage under the act by clubbing the employees at main office and the branch office, the e. I. Court need not touch the said issue. So far as the coverage under the act by clubbing the employees at main office and the branch office, the e. I. Court need not touch the said issue. ( 10 ) IT is not in dispute that after the matter was remitted to the e. i. court the appellant has examined one witness aw. 2 and has produced three documents exhibits a-23, a-24 and a-25. The respondent herein has not adduced any evidence. ( 11 ) THE appellant has not produced the original attendance registers of calcutta, bombay, madras, delhi and coimbatore offices and no other evidence is also made available before the e. i. court. The e. i. court in the course of its Orderhas observed that exhibit a-25 is a computerized copy and no person has signed it and it is not certified by any one and that the applicant did not want to produce material documents and that they have produced only exhibits a-23 and a-24 which are attendance registers and they do not reveal the real fact of contribution and that in the absence of any material it cannot determine the quantum of contribution. Consequently the e. i. court has not placed reliance on exhibits a-23, 24 and 25 and has held that in the absence of relevant evidence, the claim made by the corporation is proper and accordingly dismissed the application. ( 12 ) ADMITTEDLY, the e. i. court was expected to determine the quantum of contribution on the basis of factuals in respect of its office at bangalore and branch offices at madras, bombay, delhi, calcutta and coimbatore. Exhibits a-23 and 24 are the adendance-cum-salary registers which contain the names of employees at bangalore office. Exhibit a-25 is a computer print out showing the salary particulars of employees of other branches. Exhibits a-23, a-24 and a-25 were in no way helpful to the e. I. Court, to determine the quantum of contribution and hence it has not placed reliance on these documents. As relevant documents were not produced in spite of giving opportunity, e. i. court has held that the claim made by the corporation is proper. Exhibits a-23, a-24 and a-25 were in no way helpful to the e. I. Court, to determine the quantum of contribution and hence it has not placed reliance on these documents. As relevant documents were not produced in spite of giving opportunity, e. i. court has held that the claim made by the corporation is proper. It is relevant to refer to the decision in Modella Woollens Ltd. V. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and another (supra), wherein in a similar situation in the application filed before the insurance court, the appellant did not come out with the correct amount which according to them was payable except stating in the application that the amount demanded by the corporation was incorrect, the appellant proved nothing before the court, the supreme court held that the insurance court committed no wrong in accepting the corporation's assessment as correct without any further scrutiny. In case of Regional Director, e. s. i. corporation v. P. R. Packaging Company (supra), this court has held that under sub-section (2) of Secrion 45-a of the ESI act, there is a presumption under law that an Orderunder sub-section (1) of Secrion 45-a of the act was true and correct. Hence, it is obvious that question of proving the issue by the ESI corporation does not arise. The ratio laid down in these decisions is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Admittedly in this case, the matter was remitted to the e. i. court with a specific direction to determine the quantum of contribution on the basis of factuals. Though opportunity was given to adduce evidence, the appellant herein has failed to produce the relevant original documents like salary registers, attendance registers and account books pertaining to the branch offices at madras, calcutta, bombay, delhi and coimbatore. The e. i. court, left with no option has held that the claim made by the corporation is proper. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Orderpassed by the e. i. court dismissing the application, holding that the claim made by the corporation is proper is justified in law and it cannot be said that either it is perverse or unreasonable. I do not find any force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no valid reason to interfere with the Orderpassed by the e. i. court. I do not find any force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no valid reason to interfere with the Orderpassed by the e. i. court. There is no merit in this appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. ( 13 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly. No Orderas to costs. --- *** --- .