THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1740 of 1996 JUDGMENT: The respondent is a Hotel established at Visakhapatnam. The Inspector of the appellant Corporation visited the Hotel on 30.01.1990. After verification of the records and in particular, the ledger and cash book, he found that as on 01.11.1989, 21 employees were engaged by the respondent. On that basis, he issued a notice, dated 14.02.1990, bringing the respondent under the purview of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’) and required the respondent to pay the contribution. This was followed by issuance of a notice in Form-C, dated 01.08.1990, and subsequent proceedings. The respondent filed O.P.No.244 of 1990 before the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam challenging the proceedings issued by the appellant. Through its order, dated 16.03.1996, the trial Court allowed the O.P. Hence, this appeal. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. The effort made by the appellant to bring the respondent under the purview of the Act was thwarted at the threshold itself. The attendance register and wage register of the employees of the respondent contained 17 names. With that number, it would not be covered by the Act. The Inspector visited the Hotel on 30.01.1990 and did not find any difference or discrepancy in the wage register and attendance register. However, he prepared a report on the basis of the entries said to have been made in cash book and ledger that four more employees were engaged on casual basis and the payment of salary made to them. That constitutes the basis for initiation of proceedings. The respondent challenged the proceedings by stating that at no point of time, the number of persons engaged by it exceeded 17. Though it is the respondent, who initiated proceedings before the trial Court, the burden to prove that the number of employees engaged by the respondent exceeded 20, squarely rested upon the appellant. Except the self-serving statement, be it oral or written made by the Inspector, there was absolutely no material whatever. The ledger and cash book were seized by the Income Tax Department. Therefore, the respondent filed the xerox copies thereof with the permission of the Court. On perusing the same, the trial Court recorded a finding to the effect that the entries made therein totally accord with those in the attendance register and wage register. The appellant is not able to point out any factual or legal error in the order under appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:02.08.2010 kdl