JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the Parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 82 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 which reads as under:- “82. Appeal. –(1) Save as expressly provided in this section, no appeal shall lie from an order of an Employees’ Insurance Court. (2) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of an Employees’ Insurance Court if it involves a substantial question of law. (3) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days. (4) The provisions of sections 5 and 12 of the [Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)], shall apply to appeals under this section.” 3. The case of the respondent is that the respondent M/s Kalyani Iron Foundry is a small unit and is not a factory as defined under Section 2 (12) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 as not more than 9 employees have ever been employed in the establishment of the said unit. It is the specific case of the respondent-unit that only 4/5 employees normally work in the unit and in case of work load, the number of employees increases up to 9. The work of the establishment is carried on contract basis. It is the further case of the respondent-unit that none of the authority of the appellant-corporation ever visited the establishment of the unit nor ever any physical verification was made except visit by the inspector to the establishment on 17.03.1986 who found no worker working in the unit at the time of his visit. The appellant-corporation issued a demand notice dated 27.09.1993 asking the respondent-unit to deposit Rs.36,831.50/- within fifteen days from the date of such notice. The said claim has been made on the basis of an imaginary survey report prepared by the corporation on the basis of table work. The respondent-unit deposited the said amount. Prior to such demand notice, the appellant-corporation instituted a certificate case for recovery of the said amount in connection with the period from 16.11.1982 to 03.09.1985 but no order was passed by the certificate officer in view of the objection filed by the respondent-unit. 4. The case of the appellant-corporation on the other hand is that the respondent-unit comes under the provision of E.S.I. Act. Sri R.N.P. Sinha, the then Inspector under the Act (since deceased) visited the respondent-unit on 07.07.1982 and found 15 persons working therein. 4. The case of the appellant-corporation on the other hand is that the respondent-unit comes under the provision of E.S.I. Act. Sri R.N.P. Sinha, the then Inspector under the Act (since deceased) visited the respondent-unit on 07.07.1982 and found 15 persons working therein. Another Inspector Sri M.P. Singh (also since deceased) visited the respondent-unit on 05.08.1983 and on verification of the attendance register for the period of November, 1982 to August, 1983, he found that more than 20 workers were working in the factory every month and the factory was also using electric power. The appellant-corporation admitted that a certificate case was filed before the District Certificate Officer but as the Certificate Officer did not recover the contribution amount hence the said certificate case was withdrawn by the appellant-corporation. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned court below framed the following six issues which are as under:- (i) Is the case maintainable? (ii) Whether R.N.P. Sinha and M.P. Singh, both Inspectors under the Act visited the Establishment of M/s. Kalyani Iron Foundry, Sahid Ashram Road, Deoghar on 7.7.82 and 5.8.83 respectively, found 15 employees working on 7.7.82 and more than 20 employees working every month from the month of Nov, 82 to August, 83 from the verification of Attendance Register on 5.8.83 respectively? (iii) Is the Establishment of M/s. Kalyani Iron Foundry covered under the Provisions of E.S.I. Act, 1948 from 16.11.82 to 30.9.85? (iv) Is the notice dt. 29.7.93 bearing letter No. P/R/42-8017/2509 issued by the Recovery Officer of the Office of E.S.I.C. Patna null and void? (v) Is the applicant entitled to get the amount deposited on protest be returned? (vi) Is the applicant entitled to get the relief as claimed to? 6. The learned court below after considering the evidence in the record came to a finding that Sri R.N.P. Sinha and Sri M.P. Singh, both the Inspectors have never visited the establishment of the respondent-unit on 07.07.1982 and 05.08.1983 respectively as claimed by the appellant-corporation and the respondent-unit was not covered under the provisions of the Employees’ State Corporation Act, 1948 and has never employed more than 10 employees. Hence the demand notice dated 27.09.1993 cannot be enforced and held the same to be null and void. Hence the demand notice dated 27.09.1993 cannot be enforced and held the same to be null and void. The learned court below further went on to conclude that the respondent-unit is entitled to get back the deposited amount of Rs.52,317/- and that the case before the court was maintainable and hence directed the appellant-corporation to refund Rs.52,317/- deposited by the respondent-unit. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned court below treated the application filed by the respondent-unit as an application under Section 75(2)-B of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. 7. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence in record in its proper perspective and misconstrued the law relating to definition of employees as envisaged under Section 2 (9) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 and erred by shifting the burden of proof to the appellant-corporation. It is further submitted that the direction for refund of the amount of contribution is bad in view of Section 1 (5) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act. 8. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and submitted that the five witnesses of the respondent being the A.W.1 and A.Ws. 3 to 6 have categorically proved the case of the respondent-unit that at the most five persons have ever worked in the respondent-unit and the respondent has examined A.W.1 who has categorically stated that his name has falsely been mentioned in the purported inspection report of the two inspectors which have been marked Exhibits as Ext. A and Ext. A/1 on behalf of the appellant-corporation, as a person working in the respondent-unit even though A.W.1 himself is an owner of an independent unit and only a formal witness has been examined on behalf of appellant-corporation who proved the two purported inspection reports and the learned court below having rightly answered all the issues after threadbare discussion of the evidence in record, hence no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Therefore it is submitted by Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, that this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar, it is pertinent to mention here that though this appeal was admitted vide order dated 27.03.2010 but no substantial question of law was framed at the time of ‘Admission’. Therefore it is submitted by Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, that this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar, it is pertinent to mention here that though this appeal was admitted vide order dated 27.03.2010 but no substantial question of law was framed at the time of ‘Admission’. It is a settled principle of law that a finding of fact of court will not be a substantial question of law unless such finding is perverse or based on no evidence. 10. After going through the record, I find that the learned court below has made a threadbare discussion of the evidence in record and after considering the evidence on record has come to a conclusion that the evidence on record is insufficient to establish that the respondent-unit having ever employed 10 or more than 10 employees hence the respondent is not covered under the provisions of Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. On perusal of the record, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed but in the circumstances without any costs. 11. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the learned court below along with a copy of this Judgment forthwith.