JUDGMENT : V. Eswaraiah, J.—The claimant is a Cinema Theatre situated at Tanuku of East Godavari District. It is the case of the respondent-ESI Corporation that the petitioner employed more than 20 persons and therefore, the petitioner is covered under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'). There is no dispute in respect of a cinema theatre that if more than 20 persons are employed the said theatre would come under the coverage of the Act and the employer has to pay contribution to the employees employed. 2. The basis for ad hoc assessment made by the ESI Corporation, while issuing orders dated 11.2.1999 u/s 45-A of the Act, is only a preliminary enquiry report, marked as Ex.R-5, of the ESI Inspector. Questioning the said orders dated 11.2.1999 in directing the petitioner to pay the contributions for the period from 10.6.1992 to 31.12.1998 for the 20 employees said to have been engaged by the petitioner, the petitioner filed E.I.C.No. 7 of 1999 u/s 75(1)(g) of the Act before the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal. The Court below dismissed the said application against which this appeal has been preferred. 3. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner-theatre has engaged more than 20 employees or not? 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he has employed only 12 persons and 4 persons are in the canteen and one is an Accountant. Therefore, the total employees are 17 and the petitioner theatre is not covered under the Act, as the total number of employees engaged by him is less than 20. The basis for issuing the said orders u/s 45A of the Act is only Ex.R-5, dated 26.2.1997, the survey report issued by RW-1. The said exhibit reads as follows: "(1) The above theatre has employed 12 employees since beginning i.e., from January 1992 onwards. (2) An amount of Rs. 6,561/- was booked on 10.6.1992 towards cost of the material and labour charges paid for 6 persons. The employer has written on the reverse (back side) of the voucher No. 115 dated 10.6.1992. Further an amount of Rs. 85/-was paid towards mason charges on 10.6.1992. Besides 4 employees were working in the canteen, as per the written commitment of the Manager of the theatre. The employer has written on the reverse (back side) of the voucher No. 115 dated 10.6.1992. Further an amount of Rs. 85/-was paid towards mason charges on 10.6.1992. Besides 4 employees were working in the canteen, as per the written commitment of the Manager of the theatre. Hence, the number of employees comes to 12+6+4+1+1= Regular employees as per muster roll ---------12 (Ledger) Labour involvement as per V.No. 115 dated 10.6.1992 --------------- 6 (Ledger) Canteen employees------------- 4 Mason charges on 10.6.1992 vide V.No. 116 ----------- 1 (Ledger) Accountant ----------------------------------------------- 1 (Ledger) Earlier From C-10 dated 23.3.1993 (Office Copy) is not clearly visible. As such survey was conducted from Jan, 1992 onwards. Coverage intimation." 5. Admittedly, the perusal of the said report dated 26.2.1997 goes to show that the petitioner theatre has employed 12 employees from 10.6.1992. In the second para of the said report it is stated that an amount of Rs. 6,561/- was booked in the Ledger towards the costs of the material and on the reverse of the said Voucher No. 115 dated 10.6.1992 it was also stated about the labour charges for six persons. Apart from the six persons charges were paid to the mason on 10.6.1992 is vide Voucher No. 116 and based on the said charges paid to the mason and the said six persons; the said six persons and the mason were treated as employees of the petitioner-theatre. The dispute is only with regard to the six persons and one mason and there is no dispute with regard to the 12 employees and 4 canteen employees and one Accountant. 6. Admittedly, there is no evidence as on the date of the inspection i.e., 26.2.1997 that the petitioner-theatre has engaged more than 20 employees. The said report Ex.R-5 was based only on the Voucher No. 115 dated 10.6.1992 wherein it was shown that an amount of Rs. 6,561/-was paid towards the material costs and amount for the labour charges for the said six persons was found on the reverse of the said voucher. Even taking the entire contents of the said report dated 26.2.1997 as admitted and taken into account it cannot be said that the said six persons and one mason were engaged as casual labour. 6,561/-was paid towards the material costs and amount for the labour charges for the said six persons was found on the reverse of the said voucher. Even taking the entire contents of the said report dated 26.2.1997 as admitted and taken into account it cannot be said that the said six persons and one mason were engaged as casual labour. Therefore, it is the specific case of the petitioner in the petition and in the cross-examination that they were not casual employees and the said six labourers worked at various other places but they are not causal labour. RW-1 who submitted the report has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he does not know whether the six persons referred in Ex.R-5 worked on 10.6.1992 in the canteen for laying stones on the floor. It is stated that the mason worked only as casual coolie and he does not know how much amount was paid to them. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the said six persons were working as casual labourers and the amount paid as wages to them. If the said six persons were excluded from the Ex.R-5 report the total number of the employees engaged by the petitioner - theatre would come to less than 20 in number. Therefore, the petitioner - theatre does not come under the purview of the coverage of insurance of its employees. 7. In the case of Andhra Pradesh Handloom Weavers Co-oprative Society Ltd. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad, (1988) 2 LLJ 515, it was held that the guidelines issued by the Government cannot be basis for the best judgment assessment under Sections 45A and 99A of the Act. The determination u/s 45 of the Act must be based on the information available with the Corporation concerning each individual employer. There cannot be any universal formula applicable mechanically to each case. It is not permissible for the Corporation to adopt the basis mentioned in the notification containing guidelines issued by the Central Government. Corporation has to obtain information as provided u/s 45A of the Act before making provisional assessment. There cannot be any universal formula applicable mechanically to each case. It is not permissible for the Corporation to adopt the basis mentioned in the notification containing guidelines issued by the Central Government. Corporation has to obtain information as provided u/s 45A of the Act before making provisional assessment. It was further held that though there is no obligation on the part of the Corporation to issue a show-cause notice before initiating proceedings u/s 45A of the Act, still it is obligatory on the part of the Corporation to follow principles of natural justice during the course of the enquiry by issuing notice. Admittedly in the instant case, though the petitioner asked a copy of the inspection report the respondent-Corporation failed to furnish the copy of the report but, however, marked the said report before the Court below as Ex.R-5. Even Ex.R-5 does not form the basis to come to the conclusion that the petitioner has engaged more than 20 employees. 8. The Delhi High Court in the case of Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation 1988 II LLN 1082, held that if the employer fails to submit report of the wages paid as required u/s 44 of the Act then u/s 45A of the Act, the respondent -Corporation should determine the amount of contributions on the "basis of the information available to it". The determination of the contribution cannot be without any basis. In the instant case, absolutely there is no basis to come to the conclusion that the said six persons are casual employees of the petitioner-theatre and there is no any evidence to show the amount paid to them. The voucher as described in Ex.R-5 only relates to the cost of the material and wages paid to the six persons. Therefore, I think it is just and proper to rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Premium Clay Products, 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 567, which is reproduced as follows: "There is no substance in this appeal filed by the Corporation. The respondent had hired some casual coolies for loading and unloading of its goods. The work itself was of a sporadic nature. The coolies were available for work to others and in fact on the very day worked for several others who engaged them. The respondent had hired some casual coolies for loading and unloading of its goods. The work itself was of a sporadic nature. The coolies were available for work to others and in fact on the very day worked for several others who engaged them. In the circumstances, the said coolies cannot even be called casual workmen. Hence no contribution is payable by the respondent to the Corporation on their behalf. The case of the appellant - Corporation was, therefore, rightly negatived by the Courts below. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs." 9. Therefore, as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court merely because some casual coolies were loading and unloading its goods and the work is of sporadic nature and the coolies were available for work to others on the very same day it cannot be said that the said coolies are equal to casual workers and therefore, it cannot be said that the contribution is liable to be paid for the said coolies. 10. A Division Bench of Karnataka in the case of Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation Vs. Karnataka Asbestos Cement Products and Another, (1991) 63 FLR 638 , held that the report furnished by the Inspector do not contain the details which it requires to contain and therefore, rejection of such a report by the Courts below cannot be found fault with. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is absolutely no evidence to show that Ex.R-5 can be formed as a basis to come to the conclusion that the petitioner - theatre has employed more than 20 persons for it to come under the coverage of the Act. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 2.11.2000 in E.I.C. No. 7 of 1999, which stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.