JUDGMENT Nishitendu Chaudhury, J. 1. This appeal under Section 82 of the Employee's State Insurance Act, 1948, has been preferred by the Employee's State Insurance Corporation challenging the judgment and order dated 04.09.2003 passed by the Employee's Insurance Court, Guwahati in ESI Case No. 7 of 1999. Although the appeal was admitted on 29.01.2004 and records were called for, yet no substantial question of law as required under Section 82 of the Act was framed by this Court. However, notices were duly served upon the respondent and had put up appearance by engaging counsel. The name of the learned counsel for the sole respondent has been shown in the cause-list, but none appears for the respondent when the matter is taken up for hearing today. 2. Mr. K.K. Nandi, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appeal involves substantial question of law and so, the learned counsel is heard to find out as to whether any substantial question of law does arise from the impugned judgment and order referred to above. I have perused the judgment. The lower court records including the depositions of P.W. 1 and D.W. 1 and the exhibits adduced by both the sides are also perused. 3. The respondent herein as petitioner filed application under Section 82 of the Employee's State Insurance Act, 1948 (herein after referred to as 'the ESI Act') challenging demand notice made by the department for a sum of Rs. 77,292/- for the period from October, 1997 to June, 1998. The 6.5% contribution of the employer was calculated at Rs. 5,031/- per month and this is how the total amount of Rs. 77,292/- was arrived at. The petitioner contended that at no point of time, it employed ten or more than ten employees in its business establishment which is a Printing Press under the name and style of 'M/s. Anupom Prints and Associates (P) Ltd'. The further case of the petitioner was that on 07.10.1996, OP No. 1 Inspector of Employee's State Insurance Corporation (now designated as Social Security Officer) visited the establishment of the petitioner and wanted to see the ledger and cash book. No prior notice was served and since, the documents were lying with the engaged Chartered Accountant of the petitioner, this was informed to the Inspector vide Exhibit-2. Later on the wage register was produced and shown as Exhibit. No prior notice was served and since, the documents were lying with the engaged Chartered Accountant of the petitioner, this was informed to the Inspector vide Exhibit-2. Later on the wage register was produced and shown as Exhibit. A report was submitted by the Inspector saying that the respondent firm had 12 employees in its establishment as on the date of inspection. This according to the respondent was not correct and the firm is not covered by Employee's State Insurance Act at all as there were only ten or more employees in its establishment. Notices were duly issued by the learned court to the opposite parties who appeared and thereupon, trial was held. The petitioner/respondent herein examined himself as P.W.1 and produced Exhibits-1 & 2. Exhibit-1 shows that there were only eight employees in the establishment and having found so, the ESI Court passed impugned judgment on 04.09.2003 holding that the petitioner's firm did not have ten or more employees on any date of the order and so, it was not covered by the Act. It is this judgment which has been challenged in the present appeal. 4. The learned trial court has placed reliance on Exhibit-1 and held: "He further deposed that his Co. was established on 01.04.1994 and they maintain no attendance register but they maintain wage register for the employees. Exhibit-1 is the wage register for the period from April 1994 to May 2000. This witness also deposed that since inception of the Co. they never employed ten or more employees.........Exhibit-2 shows that the relevant documents/registers were lying with the Chartered Accountant. Exhibit-2(2) is the signature of the ESI Inspector Sir Jugal Baruah........." 5. From perusal of the judgment, it appears that the learned trial court solely based on Exhibit-1 i.e. wage register as well as the oral evidence of the sole witness of the petitioner to ascertain as to whether finding of the learned trial court on the basis of Exhibit-1 is perverse or not. This Court perused the register and found that number of employees in the establishment was eight as on the relevant time. Having so found this Court perused the deposition of P.W. 1 who had exhibited the Exhibit-1 wage register. Cross examination of P.W. 1 does not reveal anything to hold a view that Exhibit-1 was a manufactured document and was not being maintained by regular course of business of the establishment. Having so found this Court perused the deposition of P.W. 1 who had exhibited the Exhibit-1 wage register. Cross examination of P.W. 1 does not reveal anything to hold a view that Exhibit-1 was a manufactured document and was not being maintained by regular course of business of the establishment. The Exhibit-1, therefore, is an admissible document within the meaning of Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. Since the findings of the learned trial court on facts cannot be said to be perverse and rather it is based on documentary as well as oral evidence, this Court does not find any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. The appeal is devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.