JUDGMENT : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. 1. This appeal under Section 82 of The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, the said Act) has been heard on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the communication dated 15-06-209 at Exhibit-18 indicating coverage of the establishment under provisions of The Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 was required to be preceded by grant of opportunity of hearing to the establishment? (2) Whether the visit note dated 07/05/2009 at Exhibit-17 satisfies the requirements of recording necessary details of the employees present as held in Nagarjuna Health Care Center vs. M/s Employees State Insurance Corporation and anr., (2018) 2 LLJ 546? 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that it is the case of the appellant that he is the Proprietor of M/s Tekdiwal Udyog which is a proprietary concern. The said concern is running a Pulse Mill. On the basis of inspection carried out on 7-5-2009 by the Officers of the Employees State Insurance Corporation, a Visit Note was prepared and on that basis notice dated 15-6-2009 came to be issued to the appellant. In the notice it was stated that during the course of inspection it was found that the appellant had employed about 10 employees in the establishment and hence the said establishment was covered under the provisions of the said Act. According to the appellant, it was denied that 10 employees were working in the Pulse Mill as alleged. It was denied that any such inspection was carried on 7-5-2009. The signature obtained on the Visit Note was not of a person authorized by the appellant. Moreover, necessary details of the employees named therein were not mentioned in the said Visit Note and hence on the basis of such information the establishment was being sought to be illegally covered. 3. The appellant thus filed an application under Section 77 of the said Act and challenged the notice dated 15-6-2009 as issued by the Corporation. The learned Member of the Insurance Court after considering the entire material on record held that said notice as issued seeking to cover the establishment by the provisions of the said Act was legal and valid. On that conclusion the application as filed by he appellant came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved the present appeal has been filed. 4. The learned Member of the Insurance Court after considering the entire material on record held that said notice as issued seeking to cover the establishment by the provisions of the said Act was legal and valid. On that conclusion the application as filed by he appellant came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved the present appeal has been filed. 4. Shri S. M. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal submitted that before issuing the notice dated 15-6-2009 so as to cover the establishment of the appellant under the provisions of the said Act, no opportunity of hearing was given to the establishment. This resulted in breach of principles of natural justice and on that count the said notice dated 15-6-2009 was liable to be set aside. Placing reliance on the decision in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation, 2008 2 CLR 309, it was submitted that before issuing such notice intending coverage of the establishment, it was necessary for the Corporation to have granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Failure to grant such opportunity resulted in breach of principles of natural justice vitiating the said exercise. He also referred to the judgment of the High Court of Jharkand in W.P.(C) No.1407 of 2011 (Gopal Krishna Bagaria vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation and others) decided on 25-9-2012 wherein it was held that a reasonable opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the employer or the person in charge of the factory before passing any order under Section 45A of the said Act. As no such opportunity was granted in the present case, the said notice dated 15-6-2009 was liable to be set aside. It was then submitted that the Visit Note dated 7-5- 2009 as prepared by the Officer who had inspected the establishment did not give necessary details of the employees present. Except for vaguely stating the first name of each employee no further details were stated in the Visit Note. Placing reliance on the decision in Nagarjuna Health Care Center vs. M/s Employees State Insurance Corporation, (2018) 2 LLJ 546, it was submitted that the details such as the complete name, age as well as the designation of the employees present during the visit ought to have been mentioned in the said note. Placing reliance on the decision in Nagarjuna Health Care Center vs. M/s Employees State Insurance Corporation, (2018) 2 LLJ 546, it was submitted that the details such as the complete name, age as well as the designation of the employees present during the visit ought to have been mentioned in the said note. It was also necessary to have obtained the signature or thumb impression of each employee. As this was not done, the Visit Note in question could not have been relied upon. He also relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in M.F.A. No.101584/2015 (ESI) (Shri Gajanan Timber @ Saw Mill vs. The Joint Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation and others) decided on 7-2-2018 in that regard. Moreover, the signature obtained on the Visit Note was not of any authorized person representing the appellant and the signatory Shri Kamal Agrawal had no concerned with the establishment of the appellant. It was thus submitted that though the aforesaid pleas were raised before the learned Member of the Insurance Court, the same have not been considered in the proper perspective thus vitiating the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, Smt. B. P. Maldhure, learned Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. It was submitted that before invoking the provisions of the said Act for the purposes of coverage of an establishment as was done in the present case, it was not necessary to grant any opportunity of hearing to the concerned establishment. She submitted that the legal position in this regard is clear in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Poona Industrial Hotel Ltd vs. I.C. Sarin, (1980) LabIC 100. It is only after it is found that the establishment is covered by the provisions of the said Act that an opportunity was liable to be granted as regards the aspect of determination of contribution. Hence, it was submitted that the contention as urged on behalf of the appellant had no merit. As regards the details of the employees found at the establishment, it was submitted that except for vague denials, the appellant did not lead any evidence before the Insurance Court. It was open for the establishment to have examined Mr. Kamal Agrawal whose signature had been obtained on the Visit Note. As regards the details of the employees found at the establishment, it was submitted that except for vague denials, the appellant did not lead any evidence before the Insurance Court. It was open for the establishment to have examined Mr. Kamal Agrawal whose signature had been obtained on the Visit Note. Similarly, mere denial of the names of the employees found in the establishment was not sufficient and the establishment ought to have produced the relevant records to justify its stand. Without producing any records and without examining the person who was found present at the establishment, the liability was being sought to be vaguely denied. This aspect was rightly considered by the Insurance Court and it was submitted by placing reliance by the decisions in Ramdas Ramrao Parika vs. Local Officer and others, (2006) 5 BCR 824 and Ganesh Bhandar, Nagpur vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation Nagpur, (2018) 2 CurLR 577 that the said contention had no merit. It was thus submitted that the grounds of challenge as raised by the appellant had no merit and the appeal was liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and with their assistance I have also perused the records of the case. On 7-5-2009 an Officer of the Corporation visited the establishment in question and thereafter prepared a Visit Note which is at Exhibit-17 stating therein that the names of the employees were found working along with their designation and salary received by them. On the basis of that Visit Note the Corporation on 15-6-2009 issued a communication to the establishment seeking to apply the provisions of the said Act and cover the establishment in question. As per provisions of Section 2A of the said Act, every establishment to which the said Act applies is required to be registered within such time and in such manner as prescribed by the Regulations. On such registration the amount of contribution to be paid by the establishment is required to be determined as per provisions of Section 45A of the said Act. According to the appellant in view of the decisions in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and Gopal Krishna Bagaria (supra) it was necessary to the Corporation to have first granted an opportunity of hearing to the said establishment before any order in that regard was passed. According to the appellant in view of the decisions in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and Gopal Krishna Bagaria (supra) it was necessary to the Corporation to have first granted an opportunity of hearing to the said establishment before any order in that regard was passed. On the other hand according to the learned Counsel for the Corporation the question of grant of such opportunity of hearing was not required to be given at the stage when the provisions of the said Act were sought to be applied to an establishment. In my view the contention as urged on behalf of the Corporation deserves to be accepted. 7. In Poona Industrial Hotel Limited (supra), the question considered by the Division Bench was with regard to grant of an opportunity of hearing to the establishment therein before seeking to apply the provisions of the said Act. It was held that at the stage when the provisions of the said Act were sought to be made applicable to an establishment, the only relevant aspect for the concerned authority to consider was whether the said establishment answered the requirements of the said Act so as to invoke the provisions of Section 2A of the said Act. The said provision did not contemplate grant of any hearing at that stage. On the other hand, the provisions of Section 45A of the said Act contemplate the grant of reasonable opportunity of being heard to an establishment before the amount of contribution payable by the establishment is determined. That stage has not yet arisen in the present case and the matter is only at the stage of coverage of the appellant's establishment. Hence there was no necessity to comply with the requirements of grant of reasonable opportunity to the establishment at this stage. For the present, the only question to be considered was the aspect of application of the provisions of the said Act to the establishment in question which was based on the Visit Note dated 7-5-2009. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant relate to grant of opportunity of hearing while determining the amount of contribution under Section 45A of the said Act and not at the stage when provisions of the said Act are sought to be applied to an establishment. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant relate to grant of opportunity of hearing while determining the amount of contribution under Section 45A of the said Act and not at the stage when provisions of the said Act are sought to be applied to an establishment. The first substantial question of law as framed is accordingly answered by holding that when the Corporation intended to cover the establishment of the appellant in the light of provisions of Section 2A of the said Act, it was not necessary to grant the establishment an opportunity of hearing in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The impugned order therefore is not vitiated on that count. 8. As regards the requirement of recording necessary details in the Visit Note dated 7-5-2009 is concerned, perusal of the Visit Note indicates the recording of the first name of each concerned employee. According to the appellant it was necessary for the Inspector who had prepared the inspection note to have given all necessary details such as the complete name, designation, length of service, amount of emoluments etc. comprehensively. This aspect would have to be considered factually and there cannot be any thumb rule in that regard. In the present case it is found that in the inspection note there is a reference made to the presence of one Mr. Kamal Agarwal shown as nephew of the Proprietor. On behalf of establishment the son of the Proprietor was examined below Exhibit-13. He has admitted that the establishment was registered in the name of his father and that the Muster Roll as well as the register showing payment of salaries was being maintained by the establishment. He further admitted that Mr. Kamal Agrawal was the nephew of his father and that he was present when the visit Note was prepared. It is to be seen that the appellant has not led any evidence to disprove the contents of the Visit Note at Exhibit-17. Despite maintaining the Muster Register and the register of salaries, the same were not produced in the Court. No other record was brought by the establishment to raise a doubt with regard to the names of the employees mentioned in Exhibit-17. It is on the basis of the material on record that the learned Judge proceeded to accept the said Visit Note. No other record was brought by the establishment to raise a doubt with regard to the names of the employees mentioned in Exhibit-17. It is on the basis of the material on record that the learned Judge proceeded to accept the said Visit Note. As observed in Ramdas Ramrao Parika (supra), the aforesaid aspect would fall within the realm of appreciation of evidence. The Visit Note dated 7-5-2009 having been accepted by the Insurance Court, absence of detailed description of the concerned employees would not by itself vitiate the Visit Note. The observations in Ganesh Bhandar (supra) also support the stand of the respondent. Thus in absence of any other material brought on record by the appellant to either doubt or disprove the Visit Note at Exhibit-17, the same cannot be faulted merely on the ground that the complete name of each employee was not mentioned therein. Despite grant of opportunity to the establishment to counter the Visit Note, that opportunity was not utilized by the establishment and hence no fault can be found with the impugned judgment on that basis. The second substantial question of law is accordingly answered by holding that the Visit Note dated 7-5-2009 at Exhibit17 is not liable to be discarded for want of detailed description of the employees in the facts of the present case. 9. In the light of the answers given to the aforesaid substantial questions of law, it is found that the learned Judge of the Insurance Court has rightly considered the dispute raised before him. The impugned order does not deserve to be interfered with. First Appeal No.1428 of 2017 is thus dismissed with no orders as to costs.