SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Mayank Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondents. This writ petition is directed against orders dated November 4, 2009 passed by the respondents against the petitioner. The orders are exactly similar with the only difference that they relate to different periods. Orders have been passed under Section 45-A of E.S.I. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that under Section 45-A of the Act there are only two contingencies under which provisional assessment may be made. The first contingency is that where register and records etc which are furnished so warrant and the second contingency if where Inspector is prevented in any mariner by the principal or immediate employer in exercising his functions Inspection etc. while in the instant case there is no such allegation. The only thing which is mentioned in the impugned orders is that since beginning the petitioner-employer was not complying with the provisions of the Act and on the advice of the Inspector the petitioner assured the compliance but he failed to do so. Under the Act there does not appear to be any provision under which inspector is supposed to give advice. Inspectors are required to inspect and give reports.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that it is not engaging ten or more employees hence it is not covered by the Act.
(3.) In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited an authority of the Supreme Court in Srinivas Rice Mills v. ESI Corpn. (2007) 1 SCC 705 : 2007-I-LLJ-625.;