Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, the appellant firm is challenging order dated 2.12.1994 passed by the ESI Court, Jodhpur, whereby, the appellant-plaintiff's suit has been partly decreed in ESI Case No. 2/1989. 2. Brief facts of the case are that against notice of recovery of Rs. 43,706 issued by respondents, a suit was preferred under Section 75 of the ESI Act, 1948. The appellant company is having its registered office at 5/6 Heavy Industrial Area, Jodhpur doing business of carpet yarn and gowar-gum. According to the appellant-plaintiff, ESI was fully paid and impugned items on which ESI has been illegally imposed are not liable for levy of ESI without proper enquiry and the department has proceeded against the firm, that, too without giving any opportunity of hearing. 3. In the suit, in all, eight issues were framed, out of which, issue No. 4 pertaining to building repair and maintenance was decided in favour of the appellant and, it was held that ESI is not leviable for issue No. 1. But, for rest of the issues, the learned trial Court decreed the suit and, in this appeal, the appellant is challenging the finding of suit except finding on issue No. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that judgment of the learned trial Court is bad in the eye of law. The plaintiff-appellant has proved its case leading proper and cogent oral and documentary evidence; but, learned trial Court has committed error while deciding all the issues except issue No. 4. Therefore, judgment with regard to rest of the issues deserves to be decided in favour of the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that in the written-statement of S.G. Kale, it is categorically stated by him that the expenditure occurred at the Branch office at Bombay and no ESI is leviable because the expenditure includes office expenditure, telephone and postage expenditure and it is further stated by him that for transportation of goods cartage was taken on rent for loading and unloading, therefore, ESI is not leviable upon the said expenditures. Further, it is submitted that definition given in the ESI Act cannot be so widely made applicable, therefore, finding is erroneous to the said effect. 6. Further, it is submitted that definition given in the ESI Act cannot be so widely made applicable, therefore, finding is erroneous to the said effect. 6. It is also argued that an employee who is not borne on the muster-roll cannot make the company liable for being subjected to ESI. According to learned counsel for the appellant, payments made in respect of cartage through thela-bhara paid to hath-thelas (hand pushed cart) and bel-thela (oxen cart) cannot be subjected to ESI and when deduction of ESI is not practicable, ESI demand in respect thereof cannot be raised. Therefore, inclusion of such workers or such like expenditure incurred upon them cannot be subjected to ESI. In this view of the matter, the learned ESI Court has wrongly given finding that ESI is chargeable upon the expenditure occurred at Bombay branch. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that learned trial Court has solely relied upon statement of DW.1, ESI Inspector which is totally improper because in absence of statement of the Inspector who was posted at the relevant time and for whose testimony time was taken on several occasions was relevant for adjudicating the matter. The payment made under head of spinning and carding charges paid to various persons is not liable for deduction of ESI under the ESI Act. Therefore, this appeal may be allowed and adjudication made by the trial Court for all the issues may be made in favour of the appellant. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that order of recovery for ESI has rightly been made by the department because, for the purpose of business conducted by the appellant company, the workers are required and if man-power is used for the purpose of loading and unloading, then, obviously some employees are engaged for the purpose of loading and unloading of the commodities and, for the same, the respondent department has rightly demanded the contribution provided under Section 45A of the ESI Act, in which, no illegality has been committed. With regard to judgment of the learned trial Court, it is submitted that no evidence has been committed. With regard to judgment of the learned trial Court, it is submitted that no evidence has been produced by the appellant-plaintiff to prove its case. With regard to judgment of the learned trial Court, it is submitted that no evidence has been committed. With regard to judgment of the learned trial Court, it is submitted that no evidence has been produced by the appellant-plaintiff to prove its case. The learned trial Court observed in the judgment itself that for evidence only oral evidence of S.G. Kale was produced before the Court and neither any documentary evidence nor any document was produced by the plaintiff and, on the contrary, the Department produced oral evidence of DW.1 ESI Inspector Suresh Chandra and exhibited eight documents, therefore, finding arrived at by the learned trial Court does not require any interference. The judgment is well worded judgment rendered after considering entire record of the case. 9. I have perused the entire pleadings and record of the case. 10. First of all, it is very important to observe that appellant-plaintiff has preferred suit against so called recovery but, except statement of PW.1 S.G. Kale, no documentary evidence has been produced to prove its case and, on that basis, the appellant is seeking interference by this Court. I am unable to understand how, without any cogent documentary evidence, the appellant can challenge the finding arrived at by the trial Court. The trial Court framed as many as seven issues and, no documentary or oral evidence except the statement of DW.1 S.G. Kale was led by the plaintiff-appellant in support of its case, therefore, the trial Court cannot be blamed for the issue-wise finding arrived at. In my opinion, the finding arrived at by the trial Court upon all the issues is in consonance with law and evidence produced by the plaintiff. 11. I have perused the definition of workman also as enumerated in Section 2(ix) of the ESI Act. In my opinion, any work is executed outside the factory premises regularly for the purpose of loading or unloading, it is certainly covered under the definition of workman under Section 2(ix) of the Act, therefore, in absence of any documentary evidence, it cannot be said how the work was executed, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly arrived at the finding that in the absence of any evidence contrary to the fact that work was executed by workmen, it cannot be presumed that ESI is not leviable from the appellant-plaintiff. In my opinion, the appellant has failed to even make out prima facie case before the trial Court because it has not led any cogent evidence except statement of PW.1 S.G. Kale who is employee of the firm, therefore, issue-wise finding of the trial Court does not require any interference nor any re-appreciation upon the finding is warranted in this case. 12. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.