JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant has laid this appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, 'Act of 1948) assailing the impugned judgment dated 08.11.2013 passed by the Employees State Insurance Court, Sirohi (for short, 'ESI Court') whereby appellant's application under Section 75 of the Act of 1948 is rejected. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that appellant's hotel and restaurant is situated at Aburoad District Sirohi and according to appellant the restaurant is having three to four employees only. It appears that a survey/inspection was conducted by Inspector of the respondent-ESI department and during inspection, it is revealed that in the hotel and restaurant more than ten persons are employed and manufacturing process is carried out with the aid of electricity. On the strength of the report, respondent-department issued a notice dated 12.01.2011 indicating that the appellant's restaurant is a factory and as such is covered within the four corners of the Act of 1948 as an establishment to pay ESI contribution for its employees. In the notice, total amount of Rs. 33,427/- was quantified, which the appellant-employer was held liable to pay as employer's contribution. 3. Being aggrieved from the said notice, the appellant approached the learned ESI Court by laying an application under Section 75 of the Act of 1948. From a bare reading of the application under Section 75 of the Act of 1948, it is crystal clear that pleadings are absolutely vague, cryptic and unspecific, and no specific ground as such has been set out in the application by the appellant to prove that it is not covered within the four corners of the Act of 1948. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the application is contested by the respondents and a detailed reply is submitted. In the reply, the respondent-department has, inter alia, averred that a thorough investigation and survey was conducted and the concerned Inspector has prepared a report containing names of eleven employees. The report is signed by authorised representative of the appellant and on the report besides signature of the Manager of the appellant seal of the hotel is also affixed. In the reply, the respondent-department has, inter alia, averred that a thorough investigation and survey was conducted and the concerned Inspector has prepared a report containing names of eleven employees. The report is signed by authorised representative of the appellant and on the report besides signature of the Manager of the appellant seal of the hotel is also affixed. While adverting to definition of "factory" and "manufacturing process", the respondents have submitted that in view of manufacturing process being carried out in the establishment with the aid of electricity and the number of employees being more than ten, the appellant establishment comes within the ambit of a factory and as such, it is amenable to the Act of 1948. With these averments, the impugned demand notice is justified and it is prayed that the application laid by the appellant is nothing but abortive attempt to thwart implementation of a welfare legislature i.e. the Act of 1948. 4. On the basis of pleadings of rival parties, the learned ESI Court framed three issues for determination. In support of the application on behalf of appellant, Mr. Jeevan Ram Devasi has tendered affidavit and appeared in the witness box. No other witness is examined by the appellant. Mahendra Devasi son of Jeevan Ram, who has signed the Inspection Report, has also not appeared in the witness box on behalf of appellant. On behalf of department, Mr. Brij Mohan Thathera has tendered his affidavit and appeared in the witness box. 5. After conclusion of the evidence of rival parties, learned ESI Court decided Issue No. 1 against the appellant and in favour of the respondent-department. While recording finding against the appellant, the learned Court below has opined in clear and unequivocal terms that there appears to be no reason to disbelieve the Inspection Report (Exhibit NA-1) as appellant has not assailed the said report. That apart, on evaluation of the evidence of the rival parties, the learned Court below has also found that the Inspection Report bears the signature of authorised representative of the appellant with the seal of hotel and restaurant, therefore, prima facie there is no reason to discard the said report. On the strength of this finding, learned ESI Court has concluded that in all eleven employees are working with the appellant establishment and as such it is amenable to the Act of 1948. On the strength of this finding, learned ESI Court has concluded that in all eleven employees are working with the appellant establishment and as such it is amenable to the Act of 1948. While deciding Issue No. 2, learned Court below has found that the appellant has miserably failed to prove that Inspection Report is not signed by authorised representative more particularly, when seal of the hotel is admitted. Furthermore learned court below has also drawn adverse inference against appellant for the reason that the signatory of the report, Mr. Mahendra Devasi, has not appeared in the witness box, who is son of the proprietor of the hotel. Therefore, in totality the learned ESI Court has found that the appellant has utterly failed to discharge its burden of proof that no inspection was carried out and the Inspection Report is not signed by an authorised representative of the appellant. Switching on to Issue No. 3, the learned Court below has noticed that appellant has not produced any record before the respondent-department and even the evidence which is tendered in the Court is evasive inasmuch as in his deposition, the witness has shown ignorance about number of employees and the wages which is paid to the respective employees. Attendance Register and Payment Register are also not maintained by the appellant, is a candid disclosure of the witness of the appellant during cross examination. 6. Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the learned Court below has erred in recording finding on Issue Nos. 1 to 3 against the appellant inasmuch as the evidence and other materials on record have not been properly construed and therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be reversed. Mr.Vyas further submits that in fact no inspection was carried out by the department and therefore the Inspection Report which indicates that in all eleven persons are employed with the appellant hotel cannot be presumed solely on the basis of inspection report. Mr. Vyas further submits that learned Court below has seriously erred in upholding the demand notice and recording a finding that the appellant establishment is covered within the four corners of the Act of 1948. 7. Per contra, Mr. Mr. Vyas further submits that learned Court below has seriously erred in upholding the demand notice and recording a finding that the appellant establishment is covered within the four corners of the Act of 1948. 7. Per contra, Mr. Kapoor, learned counsel for the respondent-ESI department, submits that scope of interference in this appeal is very much limited and an appeal can be entertained only when there is a substantial question of law involved. Mr. Kapoor submits that the endeavour of the appellant is to call upon this Court to examine factual aspects and reassess the evidence available on record, which is beyond the scope of appeal under Section 82 of the Act of 1948. 8. Stoutly defending the impugned judgment of the learned ESI Court, Mr. Kapoor submits that that learned Court below has examined the matter threadbare and thereafter has rightly concluded that appellant establishment is a factory within the meaning of the Act of 1948 and as such it is amenable to the Act of 1948, which is a finding of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence and calls for no interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the materials available on record. 10. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and the materials available on record, it is amply clear that the learned ESI Court has examined the matter thoroughly and after considering the evidence of rival parties and the incriminating material, namely Inspection Report has come to a definite conclusion that appellant establishment is a factory within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the Act of 1948 and as such it is covered within the ambit of the Act of 1948. The finding of fact recorded by learned Court below, on evaluation of materials available on record, is neither perverse, nor the same is contrary to the materials available on record. It is trite that appeal under Section 82 of the Act of 1948 is not a regular appeal and appeal can be entertained by this Court if it involves substantial question of law. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant in substance are touching the factual aspects of the matter and his endeavour is to re-appreciate and reassess the materials available on record. In my opinion, such exercise is not permissible in an appeal under Section 82 of the Act of 1948. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant in substance are touching the factual aspects of the matter and his endeavour is to re-appreciate and reassess the materials available on record. In my opinion, such exercise is not permissible in an appeal under Section 82 of the Act of 1948. It goes without saying that Act of 1948 is a welfare legislation and its precise aim is to provide medical assistance to the employees working in factories. The Act provides certain benefits to the employees in the event of sickness, maternity and employment injury to a workman employed in or in connection with the work in the factory other than seasonal factories. The Act also provides relief for disablement and dependents' benefits to a workman. 11. The disablement benefits are available to a workman on his receiving injury by employment and in the event of death resulting from employment his widow or widows, minor sons and minor and unmarried daughters are entitled for pension. In case such dependents are not there other dependents are also entitled for pension. 12. Therefore, viewed from any angle there are laudable objects behind the Act of 1948 and it is aimed for mitigating the hardship of the employees or workmen. Therefore in totality, the learned Court below while rejecting the application of the appellant under Section 75 of the Act of 1948 has not committed any illegality or legal infirmity rather it had further the interest of the employees/workmen, who are in employment of the appellant establishment. Thus, I am not persuaded to interfere with the impugned judgment. 13. The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant appeal lacks in merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******