As per case facts, the petitioner, a labour contractor, was issued notices and an order under the ESI Act, 1948, demanding contributions for a period during which she claimed not ... to have supplied labour or to have engaged only a limited number of employees as per contract, asserting that the establishment was covered on an adhoc basis without proper verification. She contended that sufficient opportunity for hearing was not provided and that the orders were illegal given her previous contract details and a certificate stating no labour supply during part of the demanded period. The question arose whether the orders demanding ESI contributions were valid given the alleged lack of proper inquiry, opportunity for hearing, and conflicting records regarding the number of employees and work periods. Finally, the High Court found the impugned orders unjustifiable and set them aside, directing the respondent to issue a fresh notice and provide the petitioner with another reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing to present her case with relevant documents before passing appropriate orders as per the ESI Act.