1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1156 OF 2007 M/s. Shalini Chitra Mandir vs. Regional Director, ESIC & Anr. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. APRIL 03, 2008. Heard Shri Patil, Advocate for the appellant, Shri Pillai, Advocate for respondent No.1 and Shri Mirza, AGP for respondent No.2. The employer has filed this appeal under Section 82 of Employees State Insurance Act. Shri Patil, Advocate for the appellant has contended that the Insurance Court has not determined total number of employees working with the appellant – establishment. He contends that a rickshaw puller, who on the relevant date brought the boxes of film to the theater as also employees of contractor working on cycle stand have been added to the strength of employees of the theater. He contends that list Exh. 28 relied upon by the learned Member of Industrial Court included these employees also and therefore, the number has been mentioned as 2 17 employees on monthly salary and 8 employees on vouchers. He argues that there were in fact only 13 employees. He further states that the burden to show the number of employees was upon Respondent No.1 – department and as they failed to discharge it, the impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside. Shri Pillai, Advocate for respondent No.1 contends that apart from Exh. 28, there are lists of employees prepared and approved vide Exhs. 37 & 38 and all these lists are countersigned by the appellant. He contends that the burden was upon the appellant to show that the names mentioned in the lists were incorrect. He argues that lists were prepared on spot in presence of appellant, after verification of records. Shri Mirza, AGP appearing for respondent No.2 supports the order and states that the appeal can be entertained only if substantial question of law arises. After hearing parties, it is apparent that lists 28, 37 & 38 are prepared at the time of inspection by Respondent No.1 in presence of appellant and the appellant has countersigned those lists. If the lists were to be shown as incorrect, the burden was upon the appellant to produce original 3 register and show the same. Shri Patil, Advocate informs that there was fire in the establishment and all original records were burnt. In view of the lists and signature of the appellant upon it, burden was upon the appellant and if the original records were not available, the appellant could have taken appropriate steps to show that lists prepared were not correct. The learned Member of Industrial Court has arrived at the conclusion against the appellant in view of all these documents on record. There is no perversity shown in the same. No substantial question of law arises in this first appeal. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.