A.K. Mathur JUDGMENT
N. Santosh Hegde, J.
1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad made in a statutory appeal filed under Section 83(2) of the Employees State Insurance Act (the Act). The appellant - Hyderabad Race Club (the Club) in C.A.No. 4687/99 is aggrieved by the finding of the High Court whereby the appellant was held to be an establishment for the purpose of the Act whereas its contention before the authorities below including the High Court was that it was not in establishment covered by the Act.
2. The grievance of the appellant - Employees State Insurance Corporation (the Corporation) in C.A. No. 4686/99 is that the High Court having come to the conclusion that the Hyderabad Race Club is an establishment under the Act erred in reducing its liability and holding that the demand made on the said club for contribution for the period between 1975 to 1986 was unreasonable because the law at that time on this point was uncertain. In this appeal, the appellant contends that the same cannot be a ground for exempting an establishment of its statutory liability once it is held that the establishment comes under the purview of the Act.
3. We will first consider the case of the club whether it comes within the definition of 'establishment' under the provisions of the Act. It was the contention of the Club that the Club is not an establishment nor a shop within the meaning of Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishment Act 1988, hence the notification by which the Act was made applicable to the club was beyond the scope of the Act.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the various judgments on this question that the contention of the appellant Club cannot be accepted. It is suffice to say that in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Cochin Shipping Company v. E.S.I. Corporation 
MANU/SC/0050/1993 : (1993)IILLJ795SC and Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. R.K. Swamy and Ors. MANU/SC/0253/1994 : (1994)ILLJ636SC , it is quite clear that the institution like the appellant Club comes within the purview of the Act hence, we find no difficulty in accepting the finding of the High Court in this regard, therefore, this contention of the appellant-Club in C.A. No. 4687/99 has to be rejected. However, learned counsel for the appellant contended that assuming for argument sake that the club is an establishment for the purpose of the Act even then it was obligatory on the part of the authorities below to have factually examined the liability of the Club which as contended by the learned counsel for the Club was not done by the authorities below. We find no merit in this argument also. Since it is found on record that inspite of the opportunity being granted to the appellant club, no material was produced or evidence led to prove what exactly was the number of workmen in the club who are entitled to the benefit of the Act Per contra, the authorities below including the High Court has relied on the report of the Inspector who made a spot inspection and submitted a report to the authorities which has gone unchallenged. Therefore this factual finding also cannot be disturbed in this ........