IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPEAL UNDER E.S.I. NO. 2 OF 2010 M/S PARMESHWAR M. GANJI ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTOR, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. PARMESHW ... Appellant Versus THE ASST. DIRECTOR, GOA EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORP. ... Respondent Ms. Asha Dessai, Advocate under Free legal Aid. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 27th September, 2010 P.C. Heard Ms. A. Dessai,learned Counsel appointed under Legal Aid for the appellant. 2. By this appeal under section 82 of the Employee's State Insurance Act, 1948, the appellant challenges the Judgment and Order dated 31.12.2009, passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao in E.S.I. Case no. 1/2008 disposing of an application under section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act. The main grievance made by the appellant in this case is that the Employees State Insurance, Court passed an order against the appellant in breach of principles of natural justice in as much as the appellant was not given a fair opportunity to cross examine the witness and the witness was cross examined by the appellant in the absence of his Advocate who was appointed under Legal Aid Scheme. According to the appellant, on this ground alone impugned judgment passed by the District Court as well as Employees State Insurance Court dated 22.3.2007 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused the record produced by the appellant, I find that no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal as required interms of section 82 of the Act perusal of the impugned Judgment and Order dated 31.12.2009 discloses that the District Judge has dealt with the aspect of not giving an opportunity to the appellant. The District Judge noted that although on the date fixed for recording the evidence Advocate for the appellant was not present the appellant chose to cross examine the witness. This being the position, I am unable to accept the submission made on behalf of the appellant that Employees State Insurance Court passed an order in breach of principles of natural justice. In the event, the appellant did not want to cross examine the witness the appellant ought to have made an application for adjournment . In the absence of such an application and the appellant having availed the opportunity to cross examine the witness, the appellant cannot be permitted to urge that Employees State Insurance Court passed the order in breach of principles of natural justice. Moreover the order of Employees State Insurance has not also been annexed. 4. In view of the above, I find that there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal stands dismissed. 5. Fees payable to Ms. A. Dessai, learned Counsel appointed to appear for the appellant, under Legal Aid Scheme is quantified at Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only). A. P. LAVANDE, J. vn