Judgment : 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1. None present on behalf of respondent no. 2. 2. This appeal is admitted by this Court on 26.02.2004 on the following substantial questions of law, namely (b) and (e):- "(b) Whether the Employees Insurance Court could have ignored the report prepared by the ESI Inspector holding that details of the employee such as name, father's name, place from which he hails, designation, length of service, signature and thumb impression of the employees were not contained in the said report; and whether such details are mandatory as per the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, rules and regulations and whether failure to incorporate such details renders the report null and void. (e) Whether casual workers and other employees and other servants of the applicant who were working in the respondent establishment could be considered as employees as defined under Section 2(9) of the Employees Insurance Act." 3. After hearing learned counsel for the contesting sides, it has emerged that this is a case in which dispute regarding coverage of establishment of respondent no. 1 dates back to the year 1991 and with the change in circumstances of the case thereafter, the order impugned herein passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Employees State Insurance Court, North Goa, Panaji on 29.11.2003 finding that the shop of respondent no. 1 is not covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the said Act') and accordingly, directing the appellant to refund the amount of contribution already paid by respondent no. 1 with interest @ 12% per annum, would be required to be examined in the light of these changed circumstances. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant, on instructions, states that there are no other cases pending against respondent no. 1 under the provisions of the said Act and that if the respondents agree that the order of refund is set aside, the appellant would have no objection for disposal of the appeal, by setting aside the impugned order. 5. The learned Counsel for respondent no. 1, on instructions, states that respondent no. 1 has no objection if the order of refund is set aside. 5. The learned Counsel for respondent no. 1, on instructions, states that respondent no. 1 has no objection if the order of refund is set aside. He, also states that instead of setting aside the entire order, only that part of the order which relates to the refund of contribution should be set aside. Further, he also states on instructions that respondent no. 1 has already closed his establishment and proprietor of the establishment has also expired. 6. Once respondent no. 1 accepts the position that contribution already subscribed by him towards the insurance coverage of the workers need not be refunded to him, I do not think, any adverse consequences will follow if entire order is set aside as now, according to the learned Counsel for respondent no. 1, the establishment is closed. Setting aside of the entire order is also necessary in order to enable the appellant to appropriate and apply the contribution made by respondent no. 1 in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. If this is not done, the appellant would be hard put to account for and justify receipt of the contribution amount in its hands. On the other hand, setting aside simplicitor of the impugned order would not cause any prejudice to the respondent no. 1 as the establishment, according to him, is closed and if any new establishment is to be started, it would be governed by new set of facts and circumstances. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 29.11.2003 passed in Employees Insurance Case No. 61/2000 by Employees State Insurance Court, North Goa, Panaji deserves to be quashed and set aside without entering into the merits of the matter. Since the impugned order is being set aside without going into the merits of the case and upon the concession given by both the sides, it is not necessary to specifically answer the substantial questions of law involved in the appeal. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. In the circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs. 9. The appeal stands disposed of.