- (1.) None appears for the Respondents despite service.
(2.) The learned Counsel for the Appellant - ESI Corporation submitted that the Respondent A.W.1 Ashok Kumar - employer in his statement had clearly admitted vide para 11 of the impugned order that from January, 1997 to November, 1997, only 8 employees worked in the establishment, whereas from the month of December, 1997, 11 employees worked. He submitted that therefore, since in the calendar year 1997 even if for one month, more than minimum number of employees provided in the Act, namely, 10 employees worked in the said establishment, the ESI coverage for entire year for all the employees will have to be done as per Section 2(12)(a) of the Act which defines the term "factory", which is reproduced hereunder: 2 (12) "factory" means any premises including the precincts thereof- (a) whereon ten or more persons are employed or were employed for wages on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power or is ordinarily so carried on.
(3.) Nobody appears on behalf of the Respondent to oppose these submissions despite service.;