JUDGMENT : A.M. BASHEER AHAMED, J. 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A(MD)No.1451 of 2012 has been filed praying to set aside the order, dated 30.08.2012, passed by the ESI Court (Labour Court), Madurai, in E.S.I.O.P.No.17 of 2001. 2. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal C.M.A(MD)No.1767 of 2013 has been filed under section 82 of ESI Act, 1948, praying to set aside the order, dated 30.08.2012 of the Employees State Insurance Court (Labour Court), Madurai, passed in E.S.I. O.P.No. 17 of 2001. 3. The appellant and the respondent in CMA(MD)No.1451 of 2012 are arrayed as respondent/petitioner respectively in E.S.I.O.P.No.17 of 2001, on the file of the ESI Court (Labour Court) Madurai. The Employer/Petitioner in E.S.I.O.P.No.17 of 2001 also filed CMA(MD)No.1767 of 2013. Both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed before this Court challenging the order, dated 30.08.2012, passed by the ESI Court (Labour Court), Madurai, in E.S.I.O.P.No.17 of 2001, which allowed the petition, setting aside the notice of the Employees State Insurance Corporation, (in short ESIC), dated 30.01.2000, issued under section 45(A) of the ESI Act, 1948 and also remitted the case back to the ESIC for fresh disposal according to law, after issuing notice to the employer and affording reasonable opportunity to file representations and documents and after hearing the employer, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 4. The main contention of the employer is that the ESIC has no right to claim contribution from the employer establishment, as per the provisions of the Act, since the employer establishment has never employed more than 7 or 8 persons to run the establishment and the claim of the contribution in the Notice, dated 30.01.2000, is barred by the limitation, since the notice has been issued after lapse of more than 18 years ie., on 06.10.1998. 5. The proprietor of the establishment/hotel was examined as P.W.1. Ex.P1 (C18 Notice), dated 06.10.1998, Ex.P2 (Section 45(A) Order), dated 31.01.2000, Ex.P3, Ledger of 1992-93 and Ex.P4, Ledger of 1993-94 were marked on the side of the employer. The Inspector of ESIC, who inspected the petitioner Establishment/Hotel on 25.02.1997, in the presence of one B.Saravanan, representing the employer was examined as R.W.1., On proof affidavit, Exs.R1 to R8 were marked. 6. The Inspector of ESIC, who inspected the petitioner Establishment/Hotel on 25.02.1997, in the presence of one B.Saravanan, representing the employer was examined as R.W.1., On proof affidavit, Exs.R1 to R8 were marked. 6. The preliminary Inspection Report of the establishment, dated 25.02.1997/Ex.R1 reveals the fact that the inspection/visit was carried out on 25.02.1997, in the presence of one B.Saravanan and on the date of inspection, 11 persons were found working including the above said Saravanan, in the manufacturing process, with the use of powers and verified the records. Ex.R2/Visit Note also proves the factum of 10 named persons were employed in the manufacturing process. Exs.R4 & R6 are the C18 Adhoc basis show-cause notices issued to the employer for the period from 01.06.1992 to 31.03.1998 regarding the proposed determination of contribution for Rs. 1,10,682/- totally and from 01.04.1998 to 30.09.1998 for Rs. 15,337/- respectively for 11 employees, by fixing personal hearing with necessary documents for appearance of the employee or his representatives on 08.11.1998 and 05.08.1998 respectively. Both the show-cause notices were received by the employer under Exs.R5 and R6. 7. The above facts are not disputed by the employer during evidence of R.W.1. There is no mentioning about the issuance of Ex.R6, show-cause C18 Notice and also receipt of it, in the main petition. Hence, sufficient opportunities were given for hearing of the petitioner establishment against the proposed adhoc assessment for the period from 01.06.1992 to 31.03.1998 and from 01.04.1998 to 30.09.1998. 8. P.W.1 has categorically admitted during his evidence that he failed to appear for the personal hearing and also failed to send any representation/reply to the show-cause notices. No valid reason is assigned for his non-appearance in the personal hearing. The employer did not attend the personal hearing with sufficient reasons even after receipt of show-cause notices. The employer has not shown any cause against the assessment of contribution as proposed in the show-cause notices served upon him. Since the employer has not availed the opportunities given to him by attending the hearing dates and production of relevant records and contribution totally Rs. 1,26,019/- for the period from 01.06.1992 to 30.09.1998 was determined and ordered with interest under section 45(A) of ESI Act. The impugned order passed under Section 45(A), dated 31.01.2000, is produced as Ex.P2, on the side of the employer and Ex.R8 on the side of the ESIC. 9. 1,26,019/- for the period from 01.06.1992 to 30.09.1998 was determined and ordered with interest under section 45(A) of ESI Act. The impugned order passed under Section 45(A), dated 31.01.2000, is produced as Ex.P2, on the side of the employer and Ex.R8 on the side of the ESIC. 9. P.W.1 admitted the availability of the attendance register to show the number of employees for the relevant period, but not produced during evidence. 'A' Register maintained by the employer for the relevant period are also not produced. Exs.P3 and P4 Ledgers alone are relied by the employer to show the salary of the six employees ,for the period 1992-93 and 1993-94. No relevant records were produced by the employer to show that six persons alone were employed during the relevant period. The employer is legally bound to prove the number of employees employed by him for the relevant period atleast before the ESI Court, but he failed to do so. The ESIC has also produced Form C11, dated 12.10.1997, which was also received by the employer establishment regarding the coverage of the establishment from 01.06.1990. That coverage was not at all specifically questioned by the employer at any stage. 10. The learned counsel for ESIC contends that for arguments sake it is accepted that the employer had in fact, questioned the coverage then it has to be stated that the workers who are the main parties, have not been made parties by the employer before the trial Court by relying the Judgments of the Apex Court in Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd., v. ESI Corporation reported in 2009 (9) SCC 485 and in ESI Corporation v. Bhakra Beas Management Board reported in 2009 (10) SCC 671 . 11. It is also admitted by the employer that he has not chosen to implead the employees of the unit/establishment, as parties to his application before the trial Court. Employer was given sufficient opportunities to present his case before the authorized officer twice by issuance of Show-cause notices. But the employer failed to appear and to show-cause in respect of those notices. Hence, the contention of the employer and also the findings given by the trial Court that principles of natural justice was violated in giving opportunity to the employer herein, is not correct. 12. But the employer failed to appear and to show-cause in respect of those notices. Hence, the contention of the employer and also the findings given by the trial Court that principles of natural justice was violated in giving opportunity to the employer herein, is not correct. 12. The main object of filing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the employer is in respect of the issue that the claim made in the impugned 45A order is barred by limitation. The learned counsel appearing for ESI Corporation contends that cause of action of the cases arises on passing of 45(A) orders and there is no time limit for levying contribution and there is nothing wrong in charging contribution for the period from 01.06.1992 to 30.09.1998 vide said order, dated 30.01.2000. 13. In order to substantiate the contention raised in respect of point of limitation, the counsel appearing for ESIC relies the Judgment of Apex Court in ESI Corporation v. C.C.Santhakumar reported in 2007 (1) SCC 584 wherein, it has been held that " Labour Law - Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 45-A, 45-B and 77(1-A) & Expln. (b) proviso thereto - Order for recovery of contributions determined under Section 45-A -- Limitation period for - Inapplicability of limitation periods provided under Section 77(1-A) and Expln. (b) proviso thereto - Held, passed in recovery order based on the determination under Section 45A - 3 Years limitation period provided for under Section 77(1)(A) and 5 years limitation period provided for under Section 77(1)(a)(b) proviso have no relevance to pass orders under Section 45-A - Applicability of limitation period provided under Section 77(1)(A) and explanation clause (b), proviso thereto held that certain/such limitation periods are applicable only to claims made before the ESI Court and to no other proceedings. Determination under Section 45(A) by ESIC is final as far as ESIC is concerned and ESIC has no obligation to seek a resolution of the dispute by ESI Court under Section 75 or to have the order executed under Section 77 when the order is passed under Section 45(A) - It is for the employer concerned to dispute the determination made under Section 45-A before the ESI Court under Section 75 failing which the determination under Section 45A would become final against the employer as well. 14. 14. In the case on hand, the ESIC has resorted to Section 45-A against the employer, since there is failure of production of records and there is no co-operation by the employer. Since the employer failed to appear after receipt of show-cause notices issued by the ESIC, there is no need to give any findings in the said order, dated 30.01.2000, on whether the ESI Act is applicable to the unit or whether the claim is within the period of limitation. The impugned order, dated 30.01.2000 is a speaking order. 15. Despite opportunity of hearing given to the employer on 08.12.1998 and 05.08.1999, the employer did not produce any submission for evidence or records in his favour. In the above stated circumstances, the counsel appearing for the ESIC contends that the assessment had to be done "on best judgment method keeping in view the non-production of any records/documents". Hence, no question of violation of Rules of Natural Justice arises in this case. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also the Judgments of the Apex Court relied by ESI Corporation in respect of limitation point, this Court is inclined to allow these Appeals by setting aside the order passed by the ESI Court, (Labour Court), Madurai in E.S.I.O.P.No.17 of 2001, dated 30.08.2012. The issue in respect of number of employees, as contended by the employer, and also the point of issue of limitations raised by the employer in his appeal, is also decided in favour of the ESIC, in these appeals and hence, order of remand for fresh disposal as ordered by the Court below is also set aside. 16. In fine, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed and the impugned order of the ESI Court (Labour Court), Madurai, dated 30.08.2012, is set aside. The E.S.I.O.P.No.17 of 2001, filed by the employer stands dismissed. No costs.