JUDGMENT : The judgment and decree dated 10.08.2015 passed in E.I.O.P.No.55 of 2008 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The Regional Director, ESI Corporation is the appellant. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised the following substantial question of law which reads as under : (a) whether without challenging the order under Section 45-A of the Act, consequential recovery proceedings under Section 45-B to 45-I of the Act can be challenged? (b) Whether the finding of ESI Court that the respondent is not liable to pay the contribution is correct when he had not challenged the order passed under Section 45-A dated 24.05.2004 of the Act? (c) whether taking over of the Hotel run by family members and continuing the same business by the respondent in different name will not amount to transfer of establishment under Section 93-A of the Act and consequently liable to pay the contribution till the date of transfer? (d) whether the finding of ESI Court that the respondent is not the owner o Hotel Saravana Bhavan is extraneous to the issue involved in the matter as the demand of contribution is with reference to the establishment Hotel Saravana Bhavan for which he is the sole proprietor? 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ESI Corporation reiterated that the facts and circumstances established by the ESI Authorities before the ESI Court was misconstrued and the ESI Court proceeded with the case based on certain assumption as if there was two different hotel establishments. In view of the fact that the continuous functioning of the hotel was erroneously understood, the order passed by the competent authorities under Section 45 G of the ESI Act was set aside. Thus, the ESI Court order is liable to be scrapped. To substantiate the said contention, the preliminary ground has been raised that the order passed by the competent authority under Section 45A of the ESI Act in proceedings dated 24.05.2004 served on the respondent was not challenged by the respondent under Section 47 of the ESI Act. Thus, the ESI Court order is liable to be scrapped. To substantiate the said contention, the preliminary ground has been raised that the order passed by the competent authority under Section 45A of the ESI Act in proceedings dated 24.05.2004 served on the respondent was not challenged by the respondent under Section 47 of the ESI Act. In the absence of challenging the original order passed under Section 45 A of the ESI Act, the ESI Court ought not to have entertained an appeal under Section 75 in respect of the order passed under Section 45G which is a consequential order and a recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the order under Section 45A of the Act. Thus, the very judgment which was proceeded based on certain irrelevant consideration of facts is to be set aside. 4. It is further contended that the Hotel “Maheswari” and Hotel “Saravana Bhavan” are one and the same establishment. Mere change of name of the restaurant would not constitute a change of character of the business. In the present case, the father of the respondent/Mr.Dhandapani was running a Hotel business in the name and style of “Maheswari Hotel”. Subsequent to his death, the respondent/Murugadoss took over the establishment along with his brother/Mr.Vedhamoorrthy and continued the hotel business by changing the name of the Hotel as “Saravana Bhavan”. Therefore, the very same family members, more specifically, father initially and the sons thereafter were running the Hotel business in the same premises without any change in the business. Thus, the basic fact in this regard was not considered by the ESI Court. Contrarily, the ESI Court has made an observation that the ESI Authorities have not established that it is one and the same establishment. It is contended that the subsequent “Saravana Bhavan” is an independent Hotel and no way connected with “Maheswari Hotel”. Such a finding by the ESI Court is not based on the actual aspects and it is based on certain presumptions. 5. The case of the appellant is that the father of the respondent/Late.Dhandapani was running the Hotel business in the name and style of “Maheswari” and after his father, his sons namely T.Murugadoss and T.Vedamoorthy continued the hotel business by changing the name of the Hotel as “Saravana Bhavan”. The very change is made in order to evade the statutory payments including the ESI Contribution. The very change is made in order to evade the statutory payments including the ESI Contribution. Thus, the very intention of the respondent and his brother in the present case ought to have been taken into consideration by the ESI Court. The Authorities, during the inspection, found that there was no change in the Hotel premises and there was no change in the character of the business. Two sons of the original owner were running the Hotel business. When these facts are ascertained during the inspection by the competent authorities, they have passed an order under Section 45A of the Act in proceedings dated 24.05.2004. 6. The said order reveals that the notice was issued to the employer/respondent. It is pertinent to note that the Hotel “Maheswari” was already covered and the father of the respondent was paying the contribution. Sixty employees were working during the relevant point of time. However, the respondent/employer had neither replied to the notice dated 30.10.2003 nor appeared before the Authorized Officer at the time of personal hearing on 22.01.2004. The notice was received by the employer. Inspite of that, they have not defended the case before the competent authorities during the enquiry under Section 45A of the ESI Act. Thus, the authorities competent proceeded with the recovery by invoking the powers under Section 45G of the Act. Recovery notice issued under Section 45G was challenged before the ESI Court under Section 75 of the Act. The ESI Court has not considered the fact that the original order of determination of contribution payable passed under Section 45A was not challenged by any Court of law and the said order became final and the challenge of the consequential recovery order cannot be sustained. 7. This Court is of the considered opinion that the consequential order if at all challenged, the grounds must be confined with reference to the provisions under which the order was passed. In the present case, the recovery proceedings were issued under Section 45G and if any irregularity or illegality in the said order passed under Section 45G, that alone can be adjudicated. However, the facts ascertained and determined under Section 45A proceedings need not be interfered, in view of the fact that such facts were not disputed by the employer/respondent nor adjudicated by filing an appeal before the Competent Court. However, the facts ascertained and determined under Section 45A proceedings need not be interfered, in view of the fact that such facts were not disputed by the employer/respondent nor adjudicated by filing an appeal before the Competent Court. In other words, the order passed under Section 45A became final and the subsequent proceedings passed based on such order can be challenged only on certain limited grounds and such grounds must be confined with reference to the recovery alone and with regard to the facts adjudicated under Section 45A proceedings. 8. The different code numbers given to the respondent based on their representation in the year 2010 was found to be false and subsequently, the ESI Authorities canceled the subsequent code number and retained the code number allotted to the Hotel “Maheswari”, in view of the fact that the hotel run by the father was taken over by the sons and the business is also one and the same. 9. The findings of the ESI Court reveals that the appellant/Authorities have not established that the Hotel “Maheswari” was purchased by T.Murugadoss/respondent who is running the present establishment “Saravana Bhavan”. Proof in this regard is unnecessary because the Authorities during inspection, found that the premises of the Hotel was not changed. Both Hotel namely “Maheswari” and “Saravana Bhavan” are functioning in the same premises. The name of the hotel was changed as “Saravana Bhavan” after the demise of the father of the respondent/Mr.Dhandapani. Thus, the enquiry conducted by the authorities are crystal and clear with reference to the restaurant taken over by the sons of the deceased/original owner/Mr.Dhandapani. This apart, if at all these facts are disputed by the respondents, they would have adjudicated the facts before the competent authority at the time of conducting an enquiry under Section 45A of the ESI Act. Admittedly, the said order was not challenged by the respondent and the said order under Section 45A became final. Therefore, it is unnecessary on the part of the ESI Court to adjudicate these facts by arriving a conclusion that ESI Authorities have not established the purchase of the Hotel “Maheswari” from the deceased/Dhandapani by the respondent/T.Murugadoss. Such purchase became unnecessary in view of the fact that the business of the father was taken over by his two sons. If at all any such purchase, the onus lies on the respondent to produce such document before the Authorities. Such purchase became unnecessary in view of the fact that the business of the father was taken over by his two sons. If at all any such purchase, the onus lies on the respondent to produce such document before the Authorities. In other words, the burden of proof in this regard must be shifted on the person who is claiming such purchase and not the ESI Department. Thus, the ESI Court has committed an error in applying the principle of burden of proof in this regard. 10. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the findings of the ESI Court are absolutely unnecessary and not in consonance with the facts established. Therefore, the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2015 passed in E.I.O.P.No.55 of 2008 is set aside and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed. No costs.