JUDGMENT : According to the appellant herein, his society is registered under the Karnataka Societies Act and the same was established for the purpose of manufacturing the agricultural implements to cater the needs of the agriculturists. The said society has been registered under the Empoyees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (henceforth referred to as ‘the ESI Act, for brevity). According to the appellant, the Branch Manager of ESI Corporation inspected their establishment and issued a notice on 11.06.2005 directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.5,85,288/-. Thereafter, another notice was also issued on 11.07.2005. The reply was given by the appellant’s society explaining its non-liability to pay the alleged amount, which was not accepted by them. However, the respondent-corporation proceeded to issue a notice under Section 45-G of the ESI Act, vide No.KAR.ESIC.CP.53-3030-65, dated 09.10.2006. Challenging the said demand notice dated 11.08.2006 (04.09.2006) and the notice under Section 45-G of the ESI Act dated 09.10.2006, the appellant preferred an application before the Employees’ State Insurance Court, at Hubballi (henceforth referred to as ‘the Court below, for brevity) under Section 75 of the ESI Act. The Court below by its order dated 09.10.2009, rejected the application filed by the appellant herein. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. In his memorandum of appeal, the appellant has taken a contention that the respondent-corporation has failed to notice that the alleged employees with respect to whom the alleged non-contribution of ESI was complied were not his employees. Further, it is also alleged that, no opportunity was given to the appellant, before issuing the demand notice and the notice under Section 45-G of the ESI Act. 3. In response to the notice, the respondents are being represented by their counsel. 4. Perused the lower court records placed before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant in his brief argument submitted that, though it was required under proviso to Section 45-A of the ESI Act, that an opportunity of being heard be given to him, no such opportunity was given, as such, on the sole ground, the impugned order of the Court below is to be set-aside and also his application be allowed quashing Annexures – E & G before the Court below. 6. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent-corporation submitted that, the records clearly shows that sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant and before issuing the demand notice at Annexure-G, a notice at Annexure-E was given for which the appellant has given his reply, as such, an opportunity was given to him. However, in case, if this Court comes to an opinion that, no sufficient opportunity was given to him, the matter may be remanded to the respondent-corporation to proceed further afresh based upon the inspection report at Annexure-A. 7. It is not a case where the appellant establishment contends that it is not governed by ESI Act, but it is a case where the appellant though admits that, it is governed under ESI Act and has been paying ESI amount, both employees and his contribution, but the demand made by the respondent-corporation based upon the alleged inspector’s inspection report at Annexure-A to the application and dated 11.06.2005 was baseless inspection report and the corporation has acted upon the same by proceeding to issue demand notice without giving the appellant-establishment any opportunity of being heard. 8. Section 45-A of the ESI Act, reads as below : “45A. Determination of contributions in certain cases: (1) Where in respect of a factory or establishment no returns, particulars, registers or records are submitted, furnished or maintained in accordance with the provisions of section 44 or any {Social Security Officer} or other official of the Corporation referred to in sub-section (2) of section 45 is [prevented in any manner] by the principal or immediate employer or any other person, in exercising his functions or discharging his duties under section 45, the Corporation may, on the basis of information available to it, by order, determine the amount of contributions payable in respect of the employees of that factory or establishment: [Provided that no such order shall be passed by the Corporation unless the principal or immediate employer or the person in charge of the factory or establishment has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard] [Provided further that no such order shall be passed by the Corporation in respect of the period beyond five years from the date on which the contribution shall become payable]. (2) An order made by the Corporation under sub-section (1) shall be sufficient proof of the claim of the Corporation under Section 75 or for recovery of the amount determined by such order as an arrear of land revenue under section 45B [or the recovery under sections 45-C to 45-I]” 9. The first proviso to the said section goes to show that the ESI Corporation before proceeding to pass an order under Section 45-A is required to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the establishment. Admittedly, in the instant case, the appellant-establishment has been filing its returns and producing receipts and documents whenever required by the Corporation. However, dissatisfied by its return, the Inspector of the respondent-Corporation has conducted an inspection under Section 45 of the ESI Act and has submitted his inspection observation dated 11.06.2005 as per Annexure-A. Based on the same, the respondent-corporation has issued a communication to the appellant-establishment vide its communication No.KAR INS II SRO.HBL/53 3030 – 65 dated 11.07.2005 at Annexure-B, wherein it was observed that the Insurance Inspector observation slip dated 11.06.2005 shows that there is a short contribution of a sum of Rs.5,85,288/- by the establishment. The said letter shows that the corporation has regretted to observe such a short fall in the contribution by the establishment, but it does not specifically demand any express term of the said sum. But in the very same communication, at para 5 it says that, in case within 15 days, the outstanding up to date liability is not cleared, the office would be constrained to cause the same to be recovered to under Section 45-C to 45-I of the Act. 10. It is thereafter, the respondent-corporation issued through its recovery officer (respondent No.2) a demand notice vide their communication No. KAR.ESIC.CP.53-3030-65, dated 11.08.2006, (04.09.2006) at Annexure-E, wherein they have specifically mentioned that, the appellant-establishment was due to pay a sum of Rs.6,34,761/-. To the said notice, the appellant-establishment given its reply vide Annexure-F dated 19.09.2006 denying its liability to pay the said amount of Rs.6,34,761/-. In the said notice, they have taken a contention that the case of the appellant has not been properly considered by the respondent-corporation and have issued the said notice which is against the provisions of ESI Act. 11. In the said notice, they have taken a contention that the case of the appellant has not been properly considered by the respondent-corporation and have issued the said notice which is against the provisions of ESI Act. 11. After the reply of the appellant dated 19.09.2006, the respondent-corporation issued a notice under Section 45-G of the ESI Act to the Branch Manager, Bellary District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Main Branch, Hospet – 583201 under a copy to the appellant-establishment. The said notice is with No.KAR. ESIC. CP- 53-3030-65, dated 09.10.2006 at Annexure-G. The said notice under Section 45-G is one of the mode of recovery and that was exercised by the respondent-corporation by addressing its communication to the Banker of the appellant-establishment. 12. The above development go to show that nothing has been placed on record to show that after the inspector conducted his inspection, whether the appellant was given any opportunity of being heard and to present the documents maintained by him before the concerned authority. Secondly, even when a communication dated 11.07.2005 as per Annexure-B was also issued intimating the appellant of the alleged due of a sum of Rs.5,85,288/-, no opportunity of being heard was given to the appellant. Shortly, even before issuing the demand notice by the recovery officer vide No. KAR.ESIC.CP.53-3030-65 dated 11.08.2006 (Annexure-E) also no opportunity of being heard was given to the appellant. The said aspect of not providing the opportunity of being heard was brought to the notice of the respondent-corporation by the appellant in its reply dated 19.09.2006. Inspite of the same, the respondent-corporation without giving any opportunity, has proceeded further to invoke its power under Section 45-G of the ESI Act in the form of issuing the notice to the Banker of the appellant vide its notice No. KAR.ESIC.CP.53-3030-65, dated 09.10.2006. 13. It also cannot be ignored the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that according to second proviso to Section 45-A, the respondent-corporation can pass an order only with respect to a period of 5 years and not beyond that. Whereas, in the case on hand, the respondent-corporation has passed an order with respect to 7 years, i.e., from 1997-2004. Even this aspect also the Court below has not considered. 14. Whereas, in the case on hand, the respondent-corporation has passed an order with respect to 7 years, i.e., from 1997-2004. Even this aspect also the Court below has not considered. 14. As such, it is a clear case of the respondent-corporation proceeding further in taking coercive action against the appellant without giving him any opportunity of being heard. This aspect, the Court below has not considered. On the contrary, the Court below straightaway accepting Annexure-E and Annexure-G on its facial value and assuming that the requirement of law more particularly without considering the requirement of an opportunity to be given under proviso to Section 45-A of the ESI Act has proceeded to pass the impugned order by rejecting the application of the appellant. The said order of the Court below deserves to be set aside. Similarly, the Annexures B, E & G prayed to be set aside in the application also deserves consideration by setting aside those annexures reserving liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh upon inspector’s observations at Annexure-A, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. 15. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The order dated 09.10.2009 passed by the Employees’ State Insurance Court, Hubballi in Application No. 23/2006 is set aside. Annexures-B, E & G to the said Application No.23/2006 which was challenged in the Court below are set-aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent-corporation to proceed afresh, based upon its inspector’s observation dated 11.06.2005, in accordance with law.