JUDGMENT : S. Siri Jagan, J. The appellant in the above Insurance Appeal and the petitioner in the above W.P.(C) are the same. The subject matter is also same. Therefore, both the Appeal and the Writ petition are heard and disposed of together by this common judgment. 2. The appellant/petitioner is an establishment providing shipping services to prospective customers. The respondent, Regional Director of E.S.I Corporation, Thrissur, initiated proceedings for covering the establishment of the appellant/petitioner under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 from 21-11-1995 as a shop and ultimately an order was passed under Section 45 A of the Employees State Insurance Act, demanding contributions under the said Act, from the appellant/petitioner for the period from 21-11-1995 to 31-3-2007. The appellant/petitioner challenged the order of the respondent by filing I.C. No.42/2009 before the Employees Insurance Court, Alappuzha. The appellant/petitioner primarily contended that the establishment is not liable to be covered under the E.S.I Act. In the course of the proceedings before the Employees Insurance Court, the appellant/petitioner raised a contention in the rejoinder filed by them to the effect that the notification No.228/77/E2/75/LBR dated 27-05-1976 issued by the Government of Kerala under Section 1(5) of the E.S.I Act, bringing shops within the purview of the Act, is void ab initio, since requirement of approval from the Central Government and consultation with the E.S.I Corporation have not been complied with by the State of Kerala, before issuing the said notification. In his attempt to prove the said contention, the appellant/petitioner resorted to discovery proceedings under the Civil Procedure Code and served interrogatories on the respondent in the insurance appeal. The respondent did not properly answer those interrogatories. The appellant therefore filed M.P.No.234/2011 before the E.I Court to call for the records relating to the said notification to ascertain whether approval from the Central Government had been obtained and the E.S.I Corporation has been consulted by the Government of Kerala before issuing the notification. The Employees Insurance Court dismissed the petition holding that the validity of a notification issued under Section 1(5) of the Act does not come within Insurance Appeal No.108 of 2012 the subjects enumerated in Section 75 of the Act, in respect of which alone the E.I Court has jurisdiction to entertain claims or disputes. The Employees Insurance Court dismissed the petition holding that the validity of a notification issued under Section 1(5) of the Act does not come within Insurance Appeal No.108 of 2012 the subjects enumerated in Section 75 of the Act, in respect of which alone the E.I Court has jurisdiction to entertain claims or disputes. Subsequently, by the judgment impugned in the Insurance Appeal, the E.I Court held that the appellant/petitioner is a shop and therefore liable to be covered under the Act in view of the notification dated 27-05-1976.But instead of confirming the demand for contribution for the period from 21-11-1995 to 31-03-2007, the E.I Court declared that the appellant/petitioner is liable to pay contribution only from 16-09-2003 onwards, namely from a date prior to 5 years from the date of the demand made by the E.S.I Corporation. The appellant/petitioner has filed Insurance Appeal challenging that judgment of the E.I Court. 3. Collaterally the appellant/petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.8736/2013 also challenging the notification dated 27-05-1976, which is produced as Ext.P2 in the writ petition, as void and unenforceable for want of approval from the Central Government and consultation with the E.S.I Corporation, as mandated by Section 1(5) of the E.S.I Act. 4. The first contention of the appellant is that Ext.P2 notification is void ab initio for want of approval from the Central Government and consultation with the E.S.I Corporation as mandated under Section 1(5) of the Employees State Insurance Act. The contention is that when the validity of the notification is challenged, it is for the Government and the E.S.I Corporation to prove that the notification was issued after complying with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 1(5) of the E.S.I Act. The respondents have not chosen to discharge that burden and therefore this court must presume that the notification was not issued after approval from the Central Government and consultation with the Employees State Insurance Corporation. Consequently, Ext.P2 notification is liable to be quashed, in which event there is no provision for covering shops under the E.S.I Act. Therefore, the appellant/petitioner is not liable to be covered under the E.S.I Act is the contention of the appellant/petitioner. 5. In support of this contention, the appellant/petitioner submits that the presumption under Section 114 (e) of Indian Evidence Act that official acts are regularly made is not available in this case. Therefore, the appellant/petitioner is not liable to be covered under the E.S.I Act is the contention of the appellant/petitioner. 5. In support of this contention, the appellant/petitioner submits that the presumption under Section 114 (e) of Indian Evidence Act that official acts are regularly made is not available in this case. They submit that the issue is well covered by various decisions of High Courts and the Supreme Court. They rely on the following decisions :- 1. Khurshid Chik v. Raniganj Municipality (AIR 1932 Calcutta 833) 2. Jagarnath Sah v. Emperor (AIR (32) 1945 Patna 307) 3. Engineering Kamgar Union v. M/s. Electro Steels Castings Ltd. ( AIR 2004 SC 2401 ) 6. The appellant/petitioner would raise a further contention that the stand of the E.I Court that E.I Court cannot consider the question of validity of a notification issued under the Act is unsustainable in view of the decisions in Employees State Insurance Corporation, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Hyderbad v. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, Himayatnagar, Hyderbad (1970 LAB. I.C 921) (Andhra Pradesh High Court ) and Collector of Customs, Baroda v. Digvijaysinhji Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., Jamnagar (A.I.R1961 S.C 1549). 7. The next contention raised by the appellant/petitioner is that in any event the establishment of the appellant/petitioner is not a shop and therefore is not covered by the notification also. It is submitted that the appellant/petitioner is rendering shipping services to customers and not engaged in selling of goods and therefore the establishment is not a shop coming within the purview of the notification. In support of this contention, the appellant relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. v. E.S.I Corporation ( 2009 (2) KLT 497 (SC)). The counsel for the appellant/petitioner contends that in so far as the word 'shop' is not defined either in the Act or in the notification, the meaning of the word in the common parlance has to be adopted. When in common parlance people speak of a shop, they mean a place where they can buy goods. Therefore, going by the meaning of the word 'shop' in common parlance, the appellant/petitioner does not come within the purview of shop. Lastly, a contention is raised that even assuming that the appellant is liable to be covered under the Act, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Employees' State Insurance Corpn. Therefore, going by the meaning of the word 'shop' in common parlance, the appellant/petitioner does not come within the purview of shop. Lastly, a contention is raised that even assuming that the appellant is liable to be covered under the Act, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Employees' State Insurance Corpn. v. Distilleries & Chemical Mazdoor Union and Others ( (2006) 6 SCC 604 ), the coverage should be prospectively from the date of the decision of the Employees Insurance Court. 8. In answer, the counsel for the E.S.I Corporation would bring to our attention Ext.P2 notification itself. It is pointed out that in the explanatory note to the notification, it is specifically stated that the Government in consultation with the Employees State insurance Corporation and with the approval of the Central Government proposes to extend the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 to certain new categories/classes of establishments as detailed in the notification in furtherance of which only the notification was issued. According to counsel that explanatory note proves beyond any doubt that the notification was issued after consultation with the E.S.I Corporation and with the approval of the Central Government. 9. It is submitted by the counsel that the Employees State Insurance Corporation cannot be found fault with for not proving that the mandatory procedure under Section 1(5) has been complied with, after35 years of the issue of the notification. It is submitted that the Government of Kerala, the Central Government and the E.S.I Corporation cannot be expected to preserve the files relating to the notification for 35 years and therefore, it is unjust to hold that because the respondents have not proved consultation with the E.S.I Corporation and approval from the Central Government, the notification is bad. It is the further contention that the Act is a beneficial legislation intended for the benefit of the working class. It is pointed out that in all States in India, similar notifications have been issued and in all States shops are also brought within the purview of the Act pursuant to identical notifications. It is the further contention that the Act is a beneficial legislation intended for the benefit of the working class. It is pointed out that in all States in India, similar notifications have been issued and in all States shops are also brought within the purview of the Act pursuant to identical notifications. The very fact that for all these years none of the shops which have been brought under coverage on the basis of the same notification has challenged the notification on the ground of want of mandatory procedure itself is proof enough of the fact that the notification was issued after consultation and approval as required under Section 1(5) of the E.S.I Act is the contention raised. The counsel for the E.S.I Corporation would further contend that in the I.C filed before the E.I Court, the appellant/petitioner did not have any contention that the notification is bad for any reason whatsoever. It is submitted that it is in the rejoinder that they first came up with such a contention, which cannot be entertained at that late stage. As far as the contention of the appellant/petitioner that the appellant establishment is not a shop, the counsel for the E.S.I Corporation relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Cochin Shipping Co. v. ESI Corporation (1993 -II- L.L.J795), wherein the Supreme Court has held that a shipping company comes within the meaning of 'shop' coverable under the E.S.I Act. As regards the contention that the appellant establishment should be covered only prospectively, the counsel would contend that the Act does not envisage such a restriction on coverage and the only restriction is that there should not be unexplained delay in initiating proceedings for coverage and demanding contribution. According to the counsel for the E.S.I Corporation, the decision in Distilleries & Chemical Mazdoor Union's case (Supra) does not lay down a general law that in all cases where coverage is disputed, the coverage should be only prospective from the date of decision of the E.I Court. 10. We have considered the rival contentions in detail. Of course, the appellant/petitioner cannot be non-suited for delay in challenging the notification, in so far as the occasion for the appellant/petitioner to challenge the same arose only when they were sought to be covered under the Act. 10. We have considered the rival contentions in detail. Of course, the appellant/petitioner cannot be non-suited for delay in challenging the notification, in so far as the occasion for the appellant/petitioner to challenge the same arose only when they were sought to be covered under the Act. But it is significant to note that the appellant/petitioner did not raise any contention regarding the validity of the notification in the memorandum of Insurance Case originally filed before the Employees Insurance Court. They came up with the contention only in the rejoinder. The very fact that in Ext.P2 notification itself, in the explanatory note, it is specifically stated that the proposal to extend the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 to certain new categories for classes of establishment as detailed in the notification has been taken by the Government of Kerala in consultation with the Employees State Insurance Corporation and with the approval of the Central Government, would go a long way in proving that the Government of Kerala has complied with the procedure prescribed under Section 1(5) in issuing the notification. The Insurance Case was filed in 2009. The notification was issued in 1975. The appellant/petitioner took a contention regarding validity of the notification only in the rejoinder filed in April, 2010, 35 years after the notification. The Government of Kerala, the Central Government and the E.S.I Corporation cannot be expected to preserve the files relating to the notification for 35 years. As such it would be totally unjust to direct the Governments and the E.S.I Corporation to prove after 35 years that the notification was issued after complying with the mandatory procedure under Section 1(5). Of course, it is open to the appellant/petitioner to prove at least prima facie that the procedure has not been complied with. But except the bald allegation that the notification has not been issued after consultation with the E.S.I Corporation and with approval of the Central Government no material whatsoever is placed before us by the appellant in that regard. In this connection it is pertinent to note that in almost all states identical notification covering shops under the E.S.I Act are in force. Ever since1975, innumerable shops have been brought under coverage of the E.S.I Act and nobody has chosen to challenge the validity of the notification for all these 38 years. In this connection it is pertinent to note that in almost all states identical notification covering shops under the E.S.I Act are in force. Ever since1975, innumerable shops have been brought under coverage of the E.S.I Act and nobody has chosen to challenge the validity of the notification for all these 38 years. These are circumstances which would lead to an inference that the notification had been issued after complying with the procedure prescribed in Section 1(5) of the E.S.I Act. Therefore, we are not inclined to countenance the contention of the appellant/petitioner at this late stage regarding the validity of the notification. 11. The contention of the appellant that the appellant establishment is not a shop is squarely answered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Cochin Shipping Company's case (Supra), wherein an establishment which is carrying on business similar to that of the appellant/petitioner has been held to be a shop. Therefore, we do not think it necessary to enlarge on that point in so far as the question is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court against the petitioner. As far as the claim of the appellant/petitioner for coverage prospectively is concerned, we are of the opinion that the Supreme Court has not, in the decision in Distilleries & Chemical Mazdoor Union's case, laid down a law of general application to the effect that in cases where the coverage is decided by the E.S.I Court for the first time, the coverage shall be only prospective. That decision has to be confined to the facts of that case, in so far E.S.I Act does not envisage coverage only with effect from the date of decision of the E.I. Court, when coverage is challenged. We do not think that the demand for contribution from 2003onwards is in any way belated or unsustainable. For all these reasons, we do not find any merit in the contentions of the appellant/petitioner and accordingly both the appeal and the writ petition are dismissed.