MILAP CHANDRA JAIN,J. - (1.)THIS appeal has been filed under Section 82, employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') against the order of the Employees' State Insurance Court (Civil Judge), Jodhpur dated May 17,1988 by which it has rejected the petition of the petitioner moved under Section 75 of the Act. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.
(2.)THE petitioner firm carries on Dying and Printing business without using any power since November, 1979 in Marudhar industrial Area, II Phase, Basni, Jodhpur. The petitioner -appellant filed a petition under Section 75 of the Act for quashing the demand of Rs. 26,183.49p. with the allegations, in short, as follows. The non -petitioner -respondents issued a demand for the recovery of Rs. 26,143.49p. as contribution of the period upto October 27, 1982. The Act was made applicable in this Area in the factories in which 20 or more labours were working with effect from March 28,1982 and as such no demand could be raised prior to March 28, 1982. A recovery certificate been issued to the Collector Jodhpur for the recovery of the said amount of Rs. 26,143.49. The amounts of contribution in respect of the period prior to March 28, 1982 were deposited on the assurance of the non -petitioner -respondent No. 2 that the same would be adjusted and the petitioner -appellant would not be burdened to pay the whole amount in lumpsum on the applicability of the Act, No opportunity of hearing was given before issuing the said demand of Rs. 26,183.49p. The non -petitioners admitted in their reply that the petitioner firm carries on Dying and Printing business in his factory at bansi, Phase II, Jodhpur and the said amount has been deposited as contribution and recovery certificate has been sent to the Collector, Jodhpur for the recovery of the said amount. The remaining allegations of the petition have been denied. It has further been averred that the petitioner firm uses electric motor for operating colour paste machine, the Act was applicable to the petitioner firm since September 7,1980, more than 20 persons are working in the petitioner's factory since the beginning the factory was duly inspected on October 7 1980 and form No. 1 was duly submitted by it. The demand of Rs. 26,143,49p. has rightly been issued. In its rejoinder, the petitioner has averred that electric motor has never been used to operate the colour paste machine, all work is done by hand process and the provisions of the Act were applicable to its factory with effect from March 28,1982 and not prior to it.
The trial court framed the following issues: .........[vernacular ommited text]...........

(3.)THE petitioner examined its partner Parasmal bansal P.W. 1 and tendered and proved three documents. The non -petitioner examined E.S.I. Inspector S.C. Jain D.W.1 and tendered and proved three documents only. After hearing the parties the learned trial court dismissed the petition holding that the Act is applicable since September 7,1980, power is used in ceiling fans, said demand of Rs. 26,143.49 has correctly been raised and more than 30 labourers have always worked in petitioner's factory.