JUDGMENT : Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (ORAL) No one appears for the respondent in spite of service. 2. This first appeal is filed under Section 82 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the impugned order of the ESI Court dated 25.2.2012 by which the ESI Court, at the stage of final arguments, has remanded the matter to the competent authority under the Act for fresh adjudication. This is stated to have been done after 15 years of pendency of the case, which is an original proceeding, and which was initiated by the respondent herein before the ESI Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that proceedings which are initiated under Section 75 of the Act are in the nature of original proceedings inasmuch as all issues of facts and law are urged by the respective parties and the Court thereafter passes a final judgment including on the issue of service of notice or coverage or any other aspect touching the merits of the matter. It is argued that the ESI Court by the impugned order has adopted a very strange procedure and which is unknown to law of remanding a matter of an original proceeding at the stage of final arguments and which defeats the whole purpose of adjudication, and that too after 15 years of trial before the ESI Court. 4. I agree with the arguments urged on behalf of the appellant inasmuch as proceedings under Section 75 are original proceedings and before remanding of a matter and which is ordinarily done only when it is proved that the assessing authority must decide the issue of assessment afresh such as for the reason of non-service of notice, and otherwise adjudication has to be on merits by the ESI Court. I also agree that the remand of matters at the stage of final arguments and that too after 15 years of trial is wholly impermissible in law and amounts to gross perversity by the ESI Court. 5. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. I also agree that the remand of matters at the stage of final arguments and that too after 15 years of trial is wholly impermissible in law and amounts to gross perversity by the ESI Court. 5. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.2.2012 is set aside and the ESI Court will now decide the case filed by the respondent herein under Section 75 of the Act on merits in accordance with law and from the stage of final arguments being the stage the case was at the time of passing of the impugned order dated 25.2.2012. Parties are left to bear their own costs.