JUDGMENT : B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Appeal is filed under Section 82 (2) of the Employees’s State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ‘ESI Act’) by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal – I, Hyderabad, in E.I.C.No.38 of 2009, dated 29.08.2017. 2. Appellant herein is the petitioner and the respondents herein are the respondents before the Industrial Tribunal at Hyderabad. 3.1 Petitioner has filed petition under Section 75 (1)(g) of the ESI Act numbered as E.I.C.No.38 of 2009. Petitioner is the partnership firm, situated at House No.17/377 Gooty road at Anantapur and was engaged in the business of decortication of ground nuts, covered under the ESI Act by the respondent No.1 and has been paying ESI contributions due to the ESI Corporation, during the period it employed man power and paid wages to them. Petitioner did not engage any person for wages and did not pay any wages from 2/2000 to 9/2001 and April, 2004 to till date i.e., 30.11.2009. Due to change in the mode of business on account of practical reasons, no contributions to the ESI Corporation were payable at all from that time till now. IT statement for the financial year 2004-2005 is filed. 3.2 The Recovery Inspectors of ESI Corporation visited the petitioner premises on 19.11.2009 with attachment order of immovable properties of M/s.Meda Ramaiah Shetty Oil Mills in Form ESI CP-12 bearing No.52.Q/7718/06 dated 17.11.2009 and threatened the managing partner that they would attach the properties and seal its premises unless the entire amount is paid. The managing partner of the petitioner informed the respondents that the name and style of his firm is M/s. Meda Ramaiah Shetty Oil Mills but not M/s. Meda Ramaiah Shetty Oil Company and the petitioner is not at all liable to pay contribution to the ESI Corporation since April 2/2000 to 9/2001 and 4/2004 to till date i.e, 30.11.2009 and no notice or orders or certificates are served on them or on ex-managing partners. The Recovery Inspector has threatened the petitioner to seal the premises if the entire amount is not paid on the spot. Petitioner was not in a position to pay the entire amount on the spot and obtained demand drafts bearing Nos.474751 and 474752 dated 19.11.2009 for Rs.25,000/- each in favour of respondent No.2 drawn on Karuru Vysya Bank, Ananthapur branch. The Recovery Inspector has threatened the petitioner to seal the premises if the entire amount is not paid on the spot. Petitioner was not in a position to pay the entire amount on the spot and obtained demand drafts bearing Nos.474751 and 474752 dated 19.11.2009 for Rs.25,000/- each in favour of respondent No.2 drawn on Karuru Vysya Bank, Ananthapur branch. The Recovery Inspector has compelled the managing partner of the petitioner to issue a post dated cheque for Rs.91,611/- bearing Cheque No.960889, dated 30.11.2009 in favour of the Recovery Officer, drawn on ING Vysya Bank, Ananthapur, under the threat of sealing the premises. The action of the respondents and their Recovery Inspector in attaching the properties of the petitioner, in Form ESI CP-12 bearing No.52.Q/7718-06 dated 17.11.2009. 3.3 The petitioner has instructed the respondent No.2 not to present the said cheque for encashment as per his telegram dated 26.11.2009 as funds were insufficient and prayed to set aside the attachment order dated 17.11.2009 with a direction to the respondents to return the DD amount of Rs.50,000/- (two in number) with interest at the rate of 25% per annum . 4. Respondents have filed their counter and contended that as per the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948, the petitioner has to submit a closure notices to the Inspector of Factories and all other statutory authorities, submit all relevant registers and records for inspection for certifying the closure that no claim will be raised by the respondents. But he failed to do so in spite of giving several opportunities. The Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 2004-2005 does not indicate that the factory was closed but it proves that it is doing business. Petitioner submitted returns for one year only out of six to seven years. Respondents did not jump to initiate recovery steps all of a sudden, but respondent No.1 has periodically issued C-18 (adhoc basis) notices, orders under Section 45 -A of ESI Act and then issued several recovery certificates numbering about 7. All the recovery certificates relates to the demands for contributions prior to the alleged closure of factory. Respondents have all the postal acknowledgment to show that both the partners have received the notices and the petitioners are trying to make mockery of the entire legal action taken against them by the respondents. All the recovery certificates relates to the demands for contributions prior to the alleged closure of factory. Respondents have all the postal acknowledgment to show that both the partners have received the notices and the petitioners are trying to make mockery of the entire legal action taken against them by the respondents. Respondent No.1 has issued notice in Form C-18 giving opportunity of personal hearing and 45-A orders were issued when no compliance was forthcoming following C-19 recovery certificate. At every stage copies were sent to the petitioner, they received the same, but failed to comply. The steps taken by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are legal and valid, followed the principles of natural justice and the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.91,611/-, similarly they are not entitled for refund of Rs.50,000/- and prayed to dismiss the same. 5. The Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the attachment orders passed by the second respondent, dated: 17.11.2009 is against to the principles of natural justice and consequently liable to set aside the same? 2. To direct the respondents to refund an amount of Rs.50,000/- recovered from the petitioner along with 25% interest p.a.? 3. To what relief? 6. Managing partner of the appellant – petitioner is examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. Social security officer (Legal) of the respondents is examined as RW1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R15. 7. The Tribunal, after analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties and after going through the documents thereon, has dismissed E.I.C.No. 38 of 2009 on 29.08.2017. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence that the appellant has not paid the amount as there is no work for the relevant period, that prior to the attachment order dated 17.11.2009 no notice or order is served on the appellant and that the respondent failed to produce any acknowledgment of service. Respondents have passed the order under Section 45 -A on the Adhoc basis assessment and without verifying the actual records under Section 44 of the Act, by giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant by serving notice. Respondents have passed the order under Section 45 -A on the Adhoc basis assessment and without verifying the actual records under Section 44 of the Act, by giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant by serving notice. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that there is no notice or order served on the appellant prior to the alleged warrant of attachment of immovable property and also failed to see that the appellant did not engage any person for wages from 2/2000 to 9/2001 and April 2004 to 30.11.2009. The Tribunal has also failed to appreciate that the appellant is Meda Ramaiah Shetty Oil Mills, whereas the respondents served the attachment order on M/s.Meda Ramaiah Oil Company. RW1 has admitted in his cross examination that he has not filed any acknowledgment in respect of any notice or order pertaining to the present dispute. Findings arrived by the Tribunal are erroneous and against the guidelines. In support of his contentions, he relied on a decision in the case of Royal Talkies, Hyderabad and Others Vs. Employees State, Insurance Corporation , [ (1978) 4 SCC 204 ] . 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellant – petitioner has not made any application about the closure of his business so also there is no communication from the appellant for change of the company, there is no evidence that the Oil company is closed, IT returns for the period 2004-2005 are not filed and the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence of the parties by taking into consideration the documents marked thereon, rightly dismissed the E.I.C. and no interference is called for and prayed to dismissed the appeal. 10. Heard learned counsel on record and perused the material. 11. Now the point for consideration is: whether the impugned order passed in E.I.C.No.38 of 2009 dated 29.08.2017 by the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I at Hyderabad suffers from any illegality, perversity and if so, does it require interference of this Court? 12. Ex.P1 is the warrant of attachment of immovable property of the petitioner in Form No.ESI CP- 12, which attachment order is also given to the managing partner i.e., Sri M.Chandrasekhar. The Company address is D.No.17/377 Gooty Road, Ananthapur, whereunder they were prohibited and restrained until further order from transferring or changing the scheduled property in any way. Ex.P2 is the Panchanama dated 30.11.2009 issued by ESIC to the petitioner. 13. The Company address is D.No.17/377 Gooty Road, Ananthapur, whereunder they were prohibited and restrained until further order from transferring or changing the scheduled property in any way. Ex.P2 is the Panchanama dated 30.11.2009 issued by ESIC to the petitioner. 13. There is no dispute with regard to issuance of Exs.P3 to P5 as the appellant - petitioner has stated that he issued them in favour of the respondents. Appellant – petitioner has issued a telegram to the respondents on 26.11.2009 under Ex.P6 to postpone the presentation of cheque bearing No.960889 dated 30.11 2009 for Rs.91,611/- due to insufficient funds in the bank. Ex.P7 is the statement of income and tax pertaining to the Firm vide PAN.No.AACFM2753J, the Firm name shown therein is Meda Ramaiah Setty Oil Mills which is for the assessment year 2004-2005. 14. Managing partner of the appellant stated in his cross examination that he has not filed letter of intimation of closure of the Unit with effect from April, 2004. Witness adds that he has given a letter to the employee of the ESIC so also he has not filed any document to show that the company was closed from February 2000 to September 2001. As per Ex.P7, the petitioner-Company was working. Witness adds that for the purpose of Income Tax he has shown the statement and he has not filed Income Tax particulars except 2004-2005. PW1 denied the suggestion that appellant is liable to pay Rs.91,611/- and they are not entitled for Rs.50,000/-. 15.1 Ex.R1 is the Notice in Form C -18 (Adhoc basis) issued by the ESI Corporation, Hyderabad to the appellant – petitioner, dated 01.12.1999, whereunder it is proposed to determine and recover the amount of contribution payable in respect of employees of the factory established under Section 45 -A of the Act for the period from 01.10.1998 to 31.03.1999 and the contribution amount payable is Rs.5,577/- and also directed to show cause within 15 days as to why assessment should not be made absolute and to appear before them in person or through an authorized representative on 22.12.1999 at 11 a.m. with necessary documents to explain the case. 15.2 Ex.R2 is also a similar notice dated 15.01.2002 for the period from 2/2000 to 9/2001 and the contribution amount is Rs.46,475/- and to show cause within 15 days as to why assessment should not made absolute and to appear before them in person or through an authorised representative on 25.02.2002 at 11.a.m. 15.3 Ex.R3 is C-18 Actual basis notice dated 11.08.2003 stating that the contributions are not paid as per the provision of law and as per the Inspector Report dated 11.07.2003, called upon them to pay the contribution within 15 days under intimation to the office failing which they will be constrained to cause the same to be recovered under Section 45 -C to 45-I of the Act. 15.4. Ex.R4 is the adhoc dated 17.05.2007 issued to the petitioner and to its managing partner viz., Meda Chandrasekhar and the contribution is from 01.03.2005 to 31.03.2007, contribution amount is Rs.7,240/- to show cause within fifteen days as to why assessment should not be made absolute and to appear before them in person or through an authorized representative on 21.06.2007 at 02.45 p.m. 15.5 Ex.R5 is the order passed under Section 45 -A of ESI Act dated 19.03.2002 issued to the appellant - petitioner determining the contribution amount of Rs.46,475/- for the period from 02/2000 to 09/2001 together with the interest of Rs.7,720/- up to 28.02.2002. 15.6. Ex.R6 is the order under Section 45 -A of ESI Act dated 27.06.2007 wherein it is ordered that contribution amount of Rs.7,240/- for the period from 01.03.2005 to 31.03.2007 are finally determined under Section 45 -A of ESI Act and ordered to pay within a period of 15 days from the date of the order failing which the amount shall be caused to be recovered under Section 45 .C to 45.I of ESI Act. 15.7. Ex.R7 is the recovery certificate dated 17.05.2000 for the period from 01.10.1998 to 31.03.1999 issued by ESIC to the Appellant - petitioner. Ex.R8 is the recovery certificate dated 23.04.2002 for the period from 2/2000 to 9/2001 and the total amount worked out is Rs.54,195/-, stating that the above said amount may be recovered under Section 45 -C to 45-I of the act. 15.8. Ex.R8 is the recovery certificate dated 23.04.2002 for the period from 2/2000 to 9/2001 and the total amount worked out is Rs.54,195/-, stating that the above said amount may be recovered under Section 45 -C to 45-I of the act. 15.8. Ex.R9 is recovery certificate under Section 45 -C to 45-I of ESI Act, in Form C-19 dated 23.10.2003 for an amount of Rs.180/- in respect of employees for a period from 2001 to 2002 plus interest of Rs.5/-. Ex.R10 is the notice in Form D.18 dated 11.08.2003 for the wage period 04/1999 to 06/2003 and called upon them to appear in person or through an authorized agent on 19.09.2003 at 10.30 a.m. 15.9. Ex.R11 is the order passed under Section 85 (B) of ESI Act, dated 29.10.2003 against the appellant – petitioner for the period 04/1999 to 06/2003 and ordered to pay an amount of Rs.377/- within 30 days from the date of the order failing which amount will be recovered under Section 45 (C) to 45 (I) of ESI Act. Ex.R12 is the recovery certificate in Form D19 dated 16.12.2003 for recovery of Rs.377/-. 15.10.Ex.R13 is the notice in Form C18 dated 11.08.2003 for the period from 04/1999 to 06/2003 directing to deposit interest of Rs.251/-. Ex.R14 is the recovery certificate of Interest in Form C19 dated 23.10.2003 for an amount of Rs.215/- for the period from 04/1999 to 06/2003. Ex.R15 is the recovery certificate in Form C-19 dated 16.08.2007 for a period from 01.03.2005 to 31.03.2007 for an amount of Rs.8,308/-. 16. RW1 has stated in his cross examination that Ex.R1 was addressed to M/s. Meda Ramaiah Setty Oil Company, 17-377 Gooty, Ananthapur. Witness adds that M/s. Meda Ramiah Setty Oil Mills and Meda Ramaiah Setty Oil Company are one and the same and the name has been changed to M/s. Meda Ramaiah Setty Oil Mills. The Corporation has not filed any documents in respect of the same as it was not intimated and no postal acknowledgments are filed for service of C-18 adhoc notices i.e., Exs.R1 to R3, R10 and R13, 45-A orders i.e., Exs.R5 and R6, recovery certificates - Exs.R7 to R9 and R14. Served postal acknowledgement dated 05.06.2007 for R4 is filed. ESI inspector has visited the petitioner’s unit. As per Ex.R3, C-18 [actual basis] the contribution on omitted wages is Rs.180/- at the rate of 6.5% for the period 2001-2002 is Rs.2,756/-. Served postal acknowledgement dated 05.06.2007 for R4 is filed. ESI inspector has visited the petitioner’s unit. As per Ex.R3, C-18 [actual basis] the contribution on omitted wages is Rs.180/- at the rate of 6.5% for the period 2001-2002 is Rs.2,756/-. RW1 denied the suggestion that Ex.P1 warrant of attachment of immovable property is illegal and that Meda Ramaiah Setty Oil Company is different from M/s. Meda Ramaiah Setty Oil Mills and that the petitioner (appellant herein) is not liable to pay any contribution and they are liable to refund Rs.50,000/- obtained under Exs.P3 and P4 with interest. 17.1. Ex.P1 is the warrant of attachment of immovable property dated 17.11.2009 issued against the appellant as he failed to pay a sum of Rs.1,41,611/- which includes further interest up to 13.11.2009 in respect of certificate No.AP/INS.I/52-7718-06 dated 13.05.1998; 17.05.2000 (Ex.R7); 27.12.2000; 23.04.2002 (Ex.R8); 23.10.2003 (Ex.R9), 16.12.2003 (Ex.R12) and 16.08.2007 (Ex.R15). 17.2. Exs.R7 to R9, R12 and R15 are the recovery certificates issued by ESIC to the appellant - petitioner to their address i.e., 17/377, Gooty Road, Ananthapur. The same address is also shown in the cause title of the appeal with regard to the appellant- petitioner. The admission made by the appellant in his cross examination is sufficient to come to a conclusion that they have not filed letter of intimation of closure of the Unit with effect from April 2004 so also they have not filed any document to show that the company was closed from February 2000 to September 2001. Further as per Ex.P7, the appellant – petitioner company was working. As rightly observed by the Tribunal that the appellant has failed to challenge orders passed under Section 45 -E of the Act vide Exs.R5 and R6. 18. In Royal Talkies the assessment of quantum of the employers’ contribution has been made on an adhoc basis, on the strength of Section 45 (A) without hearing. 19. Ex.R5 is for the period from 2/2000 to 09/2001 the amount is Rs.7,720/- and Ex.R6 is for the period from 01.03.2005 to 31.03.2007, the amount is Rs.7,240/-. It is mentioned in Exs.R5 and R6 that the employer failed to respond to the notices and failed to appear before ESIC, for opposing the determination of contribution and that the employer has not offered any objection or opposition to such calculation even after affording sufficient opportunity. It is mentioned in Exs.R5 and R6 that the employer failed to respond to the notices and failed to appear before ESIC, for opposing the determination of contribution and that the employer has not offered any objection or opposition to such calculation even after affording sufficient opportunity. The decision in Royal Talkies is not applicable to the case on hand as the facts differ. 20. The Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties coupled with the documents marked thereon by giving justifiable reasons from paragraph Nos.14 to 17. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal 21. In view of the reasons above, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal and that the appellant-petitioner has not made out any case to set aside the order dated 17.11.2009 - Ex.A1 so also the Tribunal has rightly negatived the prayer for refund of Rs.50,000/-. No interference is called for, appeal deservers no consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed and his accordingly, dismissed. 22. CMA.No.1195 of 2017 is dismissed. As a sequel miscellaneous application/applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.