ORDER 1. This order shall also govern the disposal of MA No. 624/06, as in both the cases parties are one and the same and the impugned order passed by ESI Court (Labour Court), Indore on 9.2.2004 is also one and the same, except the case numbers. 2. In MA No. 62312006 the order under challenge is passed in Case No. 20/97 ESI, while in MA No. 624/06 the order under challenge is passed in Case No. 31/97 ESI. 3. Short facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application u/s 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (which shall be referred hereinafter as the "Act") challenging an action of the appellant Corporation for covering the respondent under the provisions of ESI Act. Vide an order dated 11.6.1997 which is under challenge in MA No. 623/ 06 and order dated 25.7.1997 which is under challenge in MA No. 624/ 06 respondent was directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 2,84,755/- and Rs. 20,215/- respectively, i.e. contribution which is required to be paid under the Act on the basis that respondent establishment was engaging 35 employees in its establishment at the relevant time. 4. The application was contested by the appellant on various grounds, including on the ground that the order was passed on the basis of information given by the respondent and also on the basis of inspection report of the respondent unit. It was prayed that the application filed by the respondent be dismissed. 5. On the basis of pleadings of parties, learned Court below framed the issues, recorded the evidence and vide order dated 9.2.2004 allowed the application of the respondent and quashed the order, which is under challenge in both the appeals. 6. This appeal is heard on the following substantial question of law: 1. Whether the evidence produced before the Court below with regard to engagement of 35 employees by the respondent establishment could have been ignored for holding that the respondent establishment is not covered under the ESI Act particularly when the inspection was carried on by the inspector of the Corporation in the presence of respondent's employees and also when this fact is fortified from the respondent's document of Registration Form No. 1? 2. Whether the burden of proving its case with positive assertions by the respondent establishment can be easily ignored by the Court below? 3. 2. Whether the burden of proving its case with positive assertions by the respondent establishment can be easily ignored by the Court below? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, can it be held that no opportunity of hearing was provided by the appellant Corporation? 4. Whether the trading activities of the society comes within the definition and meaning of 'shop' as is provided under the ESI Act in the light of many Supreme Court's decisions? 7. Mr. Vivek Sharan, learned counsel for appellant submits that learned ESI Court committed error in coming to the conclusion that action of the appellant corporation for covering the respondent under the provisions of ESI Act was bad in law and therefore, the order impugned cannot be justified in law. Learned counsel further submits that there was no evidence on record before the trial Court to have justified its order on the point that the respondent establishment was not engaging 35 employees on the day when inspection was conducted in the respondent's establishment. It is further submitted that no reason has been assigned by the learned Court below in not giving due wightage tothe report based on inspection, which took place on 22.6.1993 by inspector of the appellant Corporation, where it was found that 35 employees were engaged in the establishment. Learned counsel further submits that Registration Form No. 1 also carries the same number of employees. It is submitted that information with regard to the number of employees has been mentioned on behalf of the respondent unit itself. It is submitted that this is one of the important fact which was on record and the Court below erred on the face of the record for not taking cognizance of this document. Learned counsel submits that the order by virtue of which the respondent establishment was covered under the ESI Act and was directed to make payment of the contribution w.e.f. 1.8.1993 was correct. Learned counsel further submits that the office of the respondent is situated at Sanawad was also the controlling office of seven units of the respondent engaged in the activates of public distribution system, control shop, jean pressing unit, joining unit, cloth shop, etc. It is submitted that all these units were brought to the notice of the Court below but the trial Court did not consider and passed the impugned order. 8. Mr. It is submitted that all these units were brought to the notice of the Court below but the trial Court did not consider and passed the impugned order. 8. Mr. Girish Patwardhan with Mrs. Rachna Dubey, learned counsels for respondent supports the order passed by the learned Court below. 9. In the matter of Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, reported in [ AIR 1996 SC 3261 ], wherein Hon'ble apex Court has observed that the object of the Act is to provide certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity, employment injury and for certain other matters in relation thereto. Section 39 of the Act enjoins upon the employer to make payment of contribution and deduction of the contribution of the employees from their wages at the rates specified in the First Schedule to the Act and to credit the same to their account. The employees covered under the Act in return would receive treatment for sickness, maternity, payment for employment injury etc. Every human being has the right to live and to feed himself and his dependants. Security of one's own life and livelihood is a pre-condition for orderliness. Liberty, equality and dignity of the person are intertwined precious right to every citizen. It was further observed by the Hon'ble apex Court that having established the regional offices at the respective places, the person who keeps control or is responsible for the supervision of the establishment at the respective regional offices in connection with factory whose finished products are distributed or sold, would be the principal employer for the purpose of the Act. The person appointed for sale or distribution of the products in the regional office is the employee covered under the Act. 10. In the matter of M/s. Cochin Shipping Co. v. ESI Corporation, reported in [ AIR 1993 SC 252 ], wherein Hon'ble apex Court has observed that merely because other establishments which are akin to shop are enumerated, the Court is not obliged to give a narrow meaning to the word "shop" nor does it in any way dilute the meaning of "shop". What is to be noted is that the object is to envelope as many establishments as possible without leaving any room for doubt. That is precisely what the notification intends to do. What is to be noted is that the object is to envelope as many establishments as possible without leaving any room for doubt. That is precisely what the notification intends to do. It, therefore, cannot be said that as other kinds of establishments which can easily fall within the definition of "shop" have been enumerated a specific enumeration of the business activity in question so as to include it in the term "shop" is to be insisted upon. 11. In the matter of Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. M/s. Hotel Kalpaka International, reported in [ AIR 1993 SC 1530 ], wherein Hon'ble apex Court has observed that under section 40 the primary liability is of employer to pay not only the employer's contribution but also the employees' contribution. Therefore, the employer cannot be heard to contend that since he had not deducted the employee's contribution on the wages of the employees, he could not be made liable for the same. The object of making a deeming entrustment under sub-section (4) of section 40 will be altogether rendered nugatory if the employer is not made liable. After all, when he makes employee's contribution he is entitled to deduct from the wages. 12. From perusal of the record it is evident that respondent unit is involved in various activities and is having its establishments such as control shop, jean pressing unit, joining unit, cloth shop, etc. and is having its administrative office at Sanawad. R.C. Mandloi has been examined on behalf of the appellant, who has proved the preliminary survey report Ex. D-1 dated 22.6.1993 of the respondent unit, which was prepared by Mr. Kulkarni, one of the employee of the appellant Corporation, wherein it was found that 34-35 employees were working in the establishment of respondent unit, of which the list is Ex. D-2. Ex. D-3 in form submitted by respondent unit. Ex. D-5 is the inspection report, in which it was found that Sanawad is situated within the municipal limit. It is also mentioned in Ex. D-5 that the units which are not situated within municipal limit are shown at serial number D to G in the report Ex. D-5 and which has not been taken into consideration while issuing the demand notice. This part of evidence has not at all been taken into consideration by the learned Court below while passing the impugned order. 13. D-5 that the units which are not situated within municipal limit are shown at serial number D to G in the report Ex. D-5 and which has not been taken into consideration while issuing the demand notice. This part of evidence has not at all been taken into consideration by the learned Court below while passing the impugned order. 13. In the opinion of this Court, learned Court below committed error in ignoring the evidence produced before it with regard to engagement of 35 employees by the respondent establishment in holding that the establishment is not covered under the provisions of ESI Act. Particularly when the inspection was carried on by the appellant Corporation in presence of employees of respondent unit. . 14. This Court is further of the opinion that the trading activities of the respondent unit comes within the definition and meaning of 'shop' as provided under the ESI Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that sufficient opportunity was not given to the respondent. 15. In view of this, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.9.2005 passed by ESI Court, (Labour Court) Indore in Case No. 12/ESI Act Misc/04 and in Case No. 20/97 ESI stands set aside. 16. With the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed of. A copy of this order be placed in the record of MA No. 624/06 No order as to costs.