ORDER 1. This appeal under section 82 of the Employees, State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short “the ESI Act”) has been filed by the employer against the order dated 5.3.2003 passed by the ESI Court in Case No.3/95/ESI whereby the appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 8,978.40 towards the ESI contribution. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the provisions of the ESI Act shall be applicable only if 10 or more employees are employed in the manufacturing process with the aid of power irrespective of the whether they are employed as daily wager or on permanent basis. In this regard, my attention has been drawn to section 2(12)(a) of the unamended ESI Act. The persent definition of “factory” under section 2(12) has been enacted with effect from 1.6.2010. Learned counsel by placing reliance upon the decision of Karnataka High Court in Employees’ State Insurance Corporation vs. Karnataka Asbestos Cement Products, 1991 (Vol.79) FJR 188 has contended that ESI Inspector on visiting the establishment was required to mention the name, father’s name place from which the employee hails, the designation, the length of service and emoluments etc. if he finds that the employees are 10 or more in the establishment. Since this has not been done, fastening of the liability upon the employer to the extent of Rs. 8,978.40 is illegal and contrary to the material on record. Further it has been argued by him that even otherwise there is no material on record in order to hold that 10 or more persons are employed in the establishment of the appellant which is being carried out with the aid of power. 3. On the other hand, Shri Anubhav Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents by placing reliance upon the show cause notice dated 26.2.1992 issued to the employer directing to fill the Form No.1 submitted that since during the course of inspection it was found that in the office total 10 persons were found by the Inspector, therefore, they are covered under the ESI Act and rightly the order has been passed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. Despite going through the record the learned counsel for the respondents could not point out that how and in what manner and on what basis the finding has been arrived at by learned ESI Court directing the employer/appellant to pay the ESI contribution. I have gone through the reasonings assigned by the ESI Court and I do not find that on the basis of any material such a finding has been arrived at that 10 or more employees are working in the establishment of the employer with the aid of power. The finding is also not specific that at the time of inspection by the Inspector Mr. Ladange it was found that in total there are 10 or more employees working in the establishment of the appellant with the aid of power. Even otherwise if during the course of inspection, ESI Inspector finds that the establishment of the employer is consisted of 10 or more employees he should have recorded the name, father’s name, place from which the employee hails, his designation, length of service and emoluments etc. and the signature or thumb impression of the employee should have been obtained. Since this has not at all been done by the Inspector Mr. Ladange, I am of the view that his report cannot be relied upon by the ESI Court. The decision of Karnataka High Court, Karnataka Asbestos Cement Products (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case. 6. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order passed by the ESI Court is hereby set aside. No costs.