“10. The petitioner has also contended, that the petitioner's company has been audited for income-tax, and if the court perused the transactions of the petitioner's company, it would show how much of amount was spent as wages paid to the labours of the petitioner's company and they have produced the audited documents for the year 1998-2002, which was marked as ExP5 – ExP9 series to prove the same. They have also submitted that the petitioner's company have placed orders outside their company and paid the production charges to them were also calculated as wages paid to the labours in the petitioner's company. If really, those documents were available with the petitioner on the date of inspection by the Inspector of the respondent Corporation on 1.11.2000 or on the date of personal hearing i.e. 17.12.2002, they could have very well produce those documents with the respondent officials and could avoid further proceedings. But neither on the date of inspection nor on the date of personal hearing or any date before passing of 45-A Order of ESI Act, the petitioner has come forward to produce those documents to prove their contention, instead the petitioner has said to have refused to produce the records before the Inspector. It has been clearly mentioned in Ex.R2/Enquiry report, that the petitioner has refused to produce the records on
