( 1 ) THE present appeal challenging the order of the ESI Court dated 16-6-2000 in ESI Application No. 13 of 1996, raises the following substantial question of law: "whether the ESI Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by not considering the documents which were on record?" ( 2 ) SRI S. V. Shastry, learned Counsel appearing for Sri Gopalakrishna r. Hegde, would emphasise that the burden though cast on the appellant before the ESI Court to prove that the appellant had not employed more than 10 persons at any point of time, it was incumbent on the Court to give a finding on the validity or otherwise of material relied upon by the Corporation in passing the order under Section 45-A of the Act. He would vehemently urge that the plain paper report which has been relied upon in support of the order under Section 45-A was incomplete and that the list of employees indicated in the report is not prepared in the manner as has been laid down in a judgment of this court in Employees' State Insurance Corporation v Subbaraya Adiga and that the names of the alleged employees and their fathers name alone is indicated and all of them have not affixed their signatures against their names. Secondly, he would contend that the report states that there was kerosene found in the premises and there was a bottle cooler with 500 bottle capacity, which by itself was not sufficient to establish that the appellant was carrying on a manufacturing process with the use of power and these two situations were material for the ESI corporation to pass an order under Section 45-A and therefore the commissioner had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by not scrutinising the same. He would farther relied upon the judgment in ritz Hotel (Vegetarian), Pune v Employees' State Insurance Corporation, pune, in support of his contention that a refrigerator used in the premises could not be held to be a manufacturing process and he would urge that it is a fit case where this Court should set aside the impugned order. He would farther relied upon the judgment in ritz Hotel (Vegetarian), Pune v Employees' State Insurance Corporation, pune, in support of his contention that a refrigerator used in the premises could not be held to be a manufacturing process and he would urge that it is a fit case where this Court should set aside the impugned order. ( 3 ) PER contra, Smt. Geetha Devi would argue that the burden of establishing that not more than 10 employees were engaged by the appellant having been cast on the appellant, and the appellant having failed to do so, the correctness or otherwise of the plain paper report could have been attacked before the ESI Court or he should have produced evidence to dislodge the same. The appellant not having chosen to do so, would not be in a position to urge that the plain paper report could not have been relied upon. Secondly, she would point out that insofar as details pertaining to the employees are concerned, the act itself does not contemplate that particulars as indicated in the judgment referred herein above, should be indicated. It is also a practical reality that the employer himself may not be aware of those particulars in given cases. She also submits that there is a judgment of this Court rendered in Employees' State Insurance Corporation, bangalore v Vcerabhadrappa, wherein this position has been acknowledged by this Court. Nextly, she would argue that insofar as demonstration of the fact that the appellant was engaged in a manufacturing process with the use of power is concerned, the fact that definition of "manufacturing process" under the Factories Act has been adopted by incorporation in the ESI Act, the preservation of any article in cold storage and preparation of food or eatables in the restaurant would be sufficient to establish that there was a manufacturing process within the premises of the appellant with the use of power. ( 4 ) THE primary circumstance that the appellant has sought to produce registers and other documents, which on the face of it, were found to be bogus and concocted, was by itself sufficient to disentitle the appellant for any sort of relief by the ESI Court. ( 4 ) THE primary circumstance that the appellant has sought to produce registers and other documents, which on the face of it, were found to be bogus and concocted, was by itself sufficient to disentitle the appellant for any sort of relief by the ESI Court. In the light of the above submissions and the facts and circumstances, it is difficult to accept the argument of Sri Shastry that the ESI Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by not considering the material which would have disclosed that the appellant was not covered under the Act. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .