Judgment Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-This appeal under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act/ the ESI Act) has been preferred by Chittorgarh Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Ltd. against the order dated 24.08.1998 passed by the Employees Insurance Court, Jaipur in ESI Case No. 1/1992 whereby the learned Court rejected an application under Section 75 (1) (g) of the Act submitted by the appellant and held that the appellant has not been erroneously covered under the Act and the respondent was held entitled to recover the dues of Rs. 53,019/-towards contribution and Rs. 1,927/-towards interest. This appeal was admitted on 111.1998 on this Court being satisfied about the substantial question of law to be involved, as to whether the appellant was covered under the provisions of ESI Act? 2. Brief facts relevant for the present appeal are that the appellant submitted an application under Section 75 (1) (g) of the Act to the Employees Insurance Court, Jaipur on 10.01.1992 with the averments that the applicant was registered under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act and was engaged in the business of selling of the articles of daily use at fair and reasonable prices to the public of Chittorgarh and it was a unit of the Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Sangh Ltd. which was public sector undertaking and the Government has contributed Rs. 10 lacs towards working capital for construction of godown and purchase of vehicles. In this establishment of the applicant, 10 to 11 persons were employed and nothing was manufactured nor power was consumed. The General Manager of the establishment was sent on deputation from the Co-operative Department, whose salary and the salary of 5-6 employees had been exceeding Rs. 1,000/-upto 26.01.1985 and thereafter exceeding Rs. 1,600/-whose details have already been supplied to the concerning Inspector. For this reason, all the employees were not covered under the definition of employees under Section 2(9) of the Act. Various shops in Chittorgarh have been opened for convenience of the public and one person at each shop was employed except the medical shop in the hospital premises where 3-4 persons were employed because it was required to remain open for 24 hours. All the employees of the applicants establishment were getting medical and leave benefits in accordance with the Rajasthan Service Rules. All the employees of the applicants establishment were getting medical and leave benefits in accordance with the Rajasthan Service Rules. The Wholesale Centre, which was its headquarter, was maintaining the record concerning all the shops and issuing administrative instructions, but this Head Office was not engaged in any retail sale and it was only an administrative office. The applicant stated about six of its shops in Chittorgarh and one mobile van. It was averred in the application that the respondent attempted to cover the applicant under the ESI Act with effect from 01.05.1982 by its letter dated 010.1986, whereas the applicant had not employed any time 20 or more employees ever since beginning. Form No. 01 was filled according to the instructions of the Inspector in which all the employees of all the shops situated in different areas were added up. The applicant sought instructions by way of various letters but no instructions were received from the respondent and instead only this much was directed that the requisite form be filled up which did not clarify as to upon employment of how many minimum number of persons the provisions of the Act would apply? The applicant was wrongly covered under the Act despite less than 20 persons being in employment and, therefore, an order was prayed from the Court to the effect that the applicant has wrongly been covered under the ESI Act. 3. The respondent submitted a detailed and specific reply to the applicant. Running of the fair price shop by the applicant was not disputed but other averments were denied. It was stated that from 01.05.1982 in the applicants establishment 21 persons had been employed on wages and thereafter also more than 19 employees have continuously been engaged. The applicant was an establishment within the meaning of notification issued under Section 1(5) of the Act as more than 19 persons were employed on wages and the retail sale of the articles of daily use was made. It was not necessary for the purpose of operation of the Act that all the employees must be employed at the Head Office only. The particulars stated by the applicant of the shops were not correct inasmuch as according to the information supplied by the applicant itself , it had ten selling branches, apart from a mobile van but only six were stated in the application. The particulars stated by the applicant of the shops were not correct inasmuch as according to the information supplied by the applicant itself , it had ten selling branches, apart from a mobile van but only six were stated in the application. The particulars of the remaining shops were also stated in the reply. It was also averred that an inspection of the applicant establishment was carried out on 04.09.1986 and thereupon the applicant filled up Form-01 and it was admitted that from 01.05.1982, 21 employees were in employment on wages. On the basis of these particulars, the respondent issued the letter dated 010.1986 and all other averments by the applicant were denied being incorrect. It was pointed out that the facts were noticed by the non-applicant only on 04.09.1986 and, therefore, prior to it, no information could have been sent. It was also averred that the provisions of law apply automatically and when the applicant employed the employees to the extent of number prescribed, then it was required of the applicant to have complied with the requirements of law. The applicant was informed by the letter dated 010.1986 and by other letters about all the legal requirements and was requested to comply with the same and a part compliance was of course made by the applicant. A specific objection was also raised that the application submitted by the applicant was not within the time prescribed by law and the application was barred by time. 4. In the additional submissions, it was stated by the respondent that the appellant- applicant sought information for applying the Employees State Insurance Scheme and, therefore, the respondent sent a letter dated 17.04.1986 alongwith the registration form for the employer (Form-01), but the applicant failed to file the prescribed form duly filled up. Thereafter, inspection was carried out by the Inspector on 04.05.1986 on which date the General Manager of the applicant filled up Form-01 and according to the Inspectors report and so also the employers registration form, the applicant had employed 21 persons from 01.05.1982 and the applicant was engaged in selling of the goods. Therefore, the applicant was informed by the letter dated 010.1986 that it was covered under the provisions of the Act w.e.f. 01.05.1982. Therefore, the applicant was informed by the letter dated 010.1986 that it was covered under the provisions of the Act w.e.f. 01.05.1982. All the requirements of law were informed to the applicant who was also requested to comply with the requirements and to extend medical and other benefits to its employees and to make payment of the amount of contribution. By the letter dated 07.01.1987 the applicant was reminded for compliance and was also warned for prosecution and recovery. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 03.02.1987 and further thereafter, a notice was issued for deposit of Rs. 4,019.40 towards contribution for the period September, 1986 to November, 1986 and the applicant of course made compliance in relation to this period but did not deposit the other amount. A letter dated 23.02.1987 was received from the applicant which was replied on 01.04.1987 and thereafter, an amount of Rs. 54, 946/-towards contribution and interest was determined on 24.06.1987 and the order was sent by registered post to the applicant and the Collector, Chittorgarh was requested by the letter dated 010.1987 to recover the said amount. Making reference to all the aforesaid dates, it was stated that the recovery proceedings were pending before the Collector (Recovery) Chittorgarh which were not referred by the applicant. Even under the provisions of Section 75 (2-B) of the Act, 50% of the amount claimed by the Corporation was required to be deposited but such deposit was not made and, therefore, also, this application was rendered incompetent. 5. On the contentions of the parties, the Employees Insurance Court, Jaipur framed only one issue for consideration in the case as to whether coverage of the applicant under the Act was not right? 6. The parties led oral and documentary evidence and thereafter the learned Judge of the Employees Insurance Court proceeded to decide the application by the impugned order dated 24.08.1998. 7. The learned Judge after a travel through the entire evidence available on record found that there was no dispute about the fact that the applicant establishment was inspected on 04.09.1986 and the report Exhibit D/1 was prepared and Form-01 was given by the General Manager of the applicant. After a thorough consideration of the entire evidence, the learned Judge found that it was clearly established that in the applicant establishment, as on 01.05.1982, as many as 21 employees were working. After a thorough consideration of the entire evidence, the learned Judge found that it was clearly established that in the applicant establishment, as on 01.05.1982, as many as 21 employees were working. Thereafter, the question requiring consideration was as to whether there were any employees working on deputation and as to whether some of the employees were getting wages at the rate of Rs. 1,600/-and, therefore, they were not to be counted for the purpose of number of employees and on that count whether the provisions of the Act were not applicable? 8. The learned Judge found that the burden was on the applicant to prove that the count of the number of employees in the establishment was less than 20 and when no record was produced, then it could not be accepted that some employees were not to be counted. The learned Judge observed that it was required of the applicant to have produced the relevant bills and cash books in relation to the employees whose wages were alleged to be beyond Rs. 1,600/-but instead only a statement Exhibit 2 was filed which was not corroborated by the relevant evidence and for want of such evidence, the conclusion would be that the applicant has failed to establish that at the relevant time, the employees were getting the amount beyond Rs. 1,000/-and later on beyond Rs. 1,600/-. After this inference, the learned Judge also observed that the employees who were alleged to be on deputation cannot be kept out of calculation of the number of employees. With reference to the clear definition of the employee in Section 2 (9) of the Act, the learned Judge found that even such person whose services are temporarily lent or let on hire to the principal employer by the person with whom such person whose services are so lent or let has entered into a contract of service is also to be counted for the purpose of employee of the establishment where such person is working. Although no documentary evidence was produced for taking the services on deputation but even if that be assumed correct for the sake of arguments, then too, the same amounted to taking the services on hire and as the wages have been paid by the applicant only, therefore, they would also be counted as employees of the applicant establishment. Although no documentary evidence was produced for taking the services on deputation but even if that be assumed correct for the sake of arguments, then too, the same amounted to taking the services on hire and as the wages have been paid by the applicant only, therefore, they would also be counted as employees of the applicant establishment. On these considerations, the learned Judge proceeded to answer the question raised in the application in the negative and against the applicant and ordered that the non-applicant Corporation was free to recover the amount of contribution and interest as aforesaid. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that 20 or more persons were not employed on 04.09.1986 as alleged by the respondent Corporation. The persons who are taken on deputation are not to be counted as the employees of the appellant establishment and that the appellant was not engaged in any manufacturing process nor was using the power and, therefore, was not covered under the Act. Learned Counsel of course admitted that after September, 1986 the appellant is regularly making payment of the contribution payable by it in accordance with law. Learned Counsel for the respondent has duly supported the order dated 24.08.1998 and submitted that there is no reference to the fact that there were any employees on so-called deputation in the registration form Exhibit D/2 and so also in the statement Exhibit 2 filed by the applicant. 10. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having scanned through the entire record, this Court is clearly of opinion that this appeal is totally groundless and deserves to be dismissed. 11. The submissions by the learned Counsel for the appellant with respect to the manufacturing process and the consumption of power are not apposite to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the appellant is sought to be covered under the Act as an establishment at Chittorgarh for whom the provisions of the Act have been extended by the State Government under Section 1(5) of the Act with effect from 210.1979 as given out specifically in the order dated 010.1986, Exhibit D/3. The operation of the statute upon the appellant has been by virtue of it being an establishment to which the provisions of the Act have already been extended. 10.12. The operation of the statute upon the appellant has been by virtue of it being an establishment to which the provisions of the Act have already been extended. 10.12. So far as coverage of the applicant is concerned, the same has rightly been ordered from 01.05.1982 in view of the specific inspection report Exhibit D/1 which shows clearly that from 01.05.1982, the appellant establishment had in its employment 21 employees. A detailed month-wise employment position has been given from the year 1979 till the date of inspection by the Inspector in his report Exhibit D/1 dated 04.09.1986 which shows that prior to 01.05.1982, the number of persons in employment was maximum to the extent of 16 but in the month of May, 1982, this total became 21 and thereafter for many months, it has remained 21 or 20 and for a few months, it has reduced to 17, 18 or 19 but consistently after May, 1985 it has remained 21 or above. The registration form Exhibit-D/2 has been filed up by the Manager of the appellant itself , and specifically the number of employees has been given as 21. Nothing about anyone being on deputation or getting higher wages was ever indicated. It further appears from the correspondence available on record that the appellant had been made aware of the requirements to comply with the provisions of the ESI Act by the Co-operative Department itself way back in the month of September, 1985 as evidenced from the contents of the letter dated 012.1985 addressed by the same General Manager of the appellant establishment to the respondent Corporation in which it has been stated that the Co-operative Department has asked the appellant to comply with the requirements of ESI Scheme, if applicable, and then a question has been posed to the respondent Corporation to inform the appellant about the law and the rules which were required to be complied. It appears that in response to this letter itself , the respondent sent Form-01 to the appellant asking to get itself registered with a letter dated 10.02.1986 but in response thereto, the appellant seems only to have kept on repeating baseless communications (vide Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6) for the details about the applicability of the ESI Scheme and in how many cities in Rajasthan it was applied et al. It appears clear on the face of the record that instead of complying with its statutory obligations, the appellant entered into wholly unwarranted correspondence and, therefore, ultimately the Inspector of the Corporation carried out the inspection on 04.09.1986 and examined all the attendance registers, balance-sheets, cash books, bills etc. and then made a comprehensive and complete report Exhibit D/1. With this report itself , the General Manager of the appellant has filled up Form-01 and the contents thereof clearly show that the details stated by the Inspector in Para 8 about number of employees from the year 1979 till the date of inspection were not disputed by the appellant and the same figures were stated in Form-01 (Exhibit D/2). 113. The shops of the appellant being ten in number is also borne out from the list of the branches appended to Form-01 Exhibit D/2. It appears that the appellant did not even state correct facts in its application before the Court in which only six shops were stated contrary to the statement made in Appendix to Form-01. 114. The main plank of the case of the appellant has been that there were some employees who were getting wages exceeding the cut off figure of Rs. 1,000/-at the earlier time and Rs. 1,600/-later and, therefore, they were not to be counted as employees and the other contention raised was that some of the employees were on deputation from the Co-operative Department. The learned Judge of the Employees Insurance Court has rightly commented that regarding both these facts, nothing by way of evidence in available on record to find that there were certain employees getting higher wages or that they were on deputation. 15. The statement Exhibit 2 on which reliance has been sought to be placed by the appellant is neither here nor there. It only states about “excess wages” Rs. 1,600/-from September, 1989 to May, 1991 by stating a figure of the number of employees in Column 3 and a figure of so-called excess total wages in Column 4. It is apparent that this statement has got no probative value whatsoever, it does not prove anything, and above all, it does not even relate to the period in question i.e., from 01.05.1982. It is apparent that this statement has got no probative value whatsoever, it does not prove anything, and above all, it does not even relate to the period in question i.e., from 01.05.1982. Even the Attendance Register of May, 1982 whose copy has been filed as Exhibit 3 does not show anything about the wages or deputation, although it does show 21 employees being there. The learned Judge of the Employees Insurance Court has rightly found that the case sought to be set up by the appellant was not supported by any evidence on record and whatever material is available on record shows it clearly that the appellant was rightly covered under the Act from 01.05.1982. The learned Judge has also rightly pointed out that even if two persons be deemed to have been taken on deputation, they deserve to be counted for the purpose of the number of employees of the appellant and such observations are clearly in consonance with the provisions of Section 2(9)(iii) of the Act including in the definition of “employee” any such person,- “(iii) whose services are temporarily lent or let on hire to the principal employer by the person with whom the person whose services are so lent or let on hire has entered into a contract of service;” 16. It may also be pointed out that the non-applicant Corporation had raised questions about the mandatory deposit having not been made by the applicant and so also about limitation. The application does not contain any averment as to when the cause of action arose and how the application is within limitation. From the evidence on record, the competence of the application with reference to these objections also remains seriously in doubt. Be that as it may, as these aspects have not been dealt with by the Court below and have not been raised by respondent in this appeal, they are not been dilated further. However, in any case, there does not appear to be any reason to take any different view of the matter for operation of the ESI Act upon the appellant. However, in any case, there does not appear to be any reason to take any different view of the matter for operation of the ESI Act upon the appellant. The conclusion reached by the learned Judge of the Employees Insurance Court about coverage of the appellant by the provisions of ESI Act is clearly in conformity with the result deducible from the evidence on record and is also clearly in consonance with the scheme of the ESI Act which is a beneficial piece of legislation intended towards benefit to the employees. 17. Apart from the aforesaid, the fact also remains that admittedly from September, 1986 the appellant has started making contribution and, as claimed by the appellant, they had been regularly making contribution as required by law. 18. Net result of the discussion is that the present appeal is totally devoid of substance. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.