JUDGMENT : Shailesh K. Sinha, J. The appeal is directed against the order dated 2nd of April, 2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Authority under the Employees' State Insurance Court, Patna (hereinafter referred to as 'the Insurance, Court') in E.S.I. Case No. 6 of 2001, whereby on the application of the respondent u/s 75(1)(g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') it has been held that the respondent-establishment is not liable to pay the demand raised by the appellant-Corporation for the period in question. The demand being perverse is, accordingly, not sustainable in law. The appellant-Corporation on being aggrieved has preferred this appeal under sub-section (2) of section 82 of the Act. The respondent herein through an application u/s 75(1)(g) of the Act assailed the contribution under the Act as demanded by the Corporation for the period 24th of November, 1980 to 30th of September, 1986 on the ground that the Act is not covered on the establishment of the respondent during the material period. The further case of the respondent is that the contribution as determined by the Corporation was completely behind the back as he was not given any notice in the proceedings with respect to the determination of the demand as required u/s 45A of the Act. The specific case of the appellant-Corporation is that the respondent-establishment is covered under the Act as more than twenty persons were working in the Cinema House at the material period and on the basis of the report of the Insurance Inspector, the notice in Form C-11 dated 18th of December, 1981 was issued, besides the case filed by the respondent before the Insurance Court was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed u/s 77(1-A) of the Act. 2. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bijpuria, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the order under appeal deserves to be set aside for the reasons that the order has been passed without considering the evidence on the record and also that the case filed by the respondent was barred by the limitation prescribed u/s 77(1-A) of the Act. 2. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bijpuria, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the order under appeal deserves to be set aside for the reasons that the order has been passed without considering the evidence on the record and also that the case filed by the respondent was barred by the limitation prescribed u/s 77(1-A) of the Act. It is submitted that the appellants had produced on the record the survey report as also the inspection report as well as the coverage notice as per Form C-11 dated 18th of December, 1981 (Ext.C) and also adduced the evidence oral and documentary of the retired employee Daso Thakur as O.P.W.1. The evidences were not considered in its correct perspective. As such, the order deserves to be set aside. 3. Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that in terms of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 82 of the Act/ no appeal is permissible in law before this Court against the order of the Insurance Court save and except on the question of substantial question of law. It is submitted that in this appeal no substantial question of law is involved. The case has been decided on the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties. The Insurance Court has held that in support of the demand neither there is order on the record, if any, passed u/s 45A of the Act nor the proceedings leading to passing of the aforesaid order is on the record. It is further submitted that the respondent had filed an application before the Insurance Court within the prescribed period of limitation of three years after knowing the fact for the first time on 28th of February, 2001 when the Bank account was seized and as such the case was filed within the period of limitation. 4. On considering the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the respective cases as also the evidences brought on the record, it would appear that the order under appeal has been passed by the Insurance Court on appraisal of the evidence and the documents brought on the record. 4. On considering the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the respective cases as also the evidences brought on the record, it would appear that the order under appeal has been passed by the Insurance Court on appraisal of the evidence and the documents brought on the record. It would further appear that it is not in dispute that the contribution as determined u/s 45A of the Act is not on the record nor the proceedings leading to passing of such order is on the record, besides the question as to whether how many persons were working is purely a question of fact and that could not be a substantial question of law. There is no such finding of the Insurance Court that the, case was filed beyond the period of limitation although it is admitted on behalf of the respondent-establishment that it could learn for the first time on 28th of February, 2001 when the Bank account was seized and as such the application was filed within a period of three years from such date. As such it is well within the period of limitation. The question of limitation cannot be a substantial question of law rather it is a mixed question of fact and law. The cause of action, it any, cannot also be the substantial question of law since the cause of action is a bundle of facts either disputed or admitted to be decided on facts on the basis of the evidence on record. For the reasons and the discussions as made above, I do not find any merit in the appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.