“The above ruling was reversed by the Supreme Court in the decision referred to above. The Supreme Court was of the view that the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court ws clearly in error to reach the above conclusion. The Supreme Court held that though Section 75 of the Act does not envisage as to who has to approach the Insurance Court, by necessary implication when the employer denies the liability or aplicability of the provisions of the Act or the quantum of the contribution to be deposited by the employer, it is for him to approach the Insurance Court and seek adjudicated and it is not for the Corporation in each case, whenever there is a dispute, to go to Insurance Court and have the dispute adjudication. Otherwise the Act would become unworkable and defeat the object and purpose of the Act. The Supreme Court also held that the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court, having followed the Full Bench Judgment, fell into the same error and set adie that part of the Judgment of the Full Bench and of the Division Bench which was not consistent with the declaration of law by the Supreme Court. The Insurance Court was directed to determine the contribution payable by the respondent before it. We are of the view that the stand taken by the applicants praying the Court to direct the Corporation to lead evidence first in the application filed under Section 75 of the Act for declaration that they will not come under the purview of the Act is fallacious. The person who comes to the Court with a grievance has a duty to establish his case by leading evidence, oral and documentary and substantiate his claim. The basic principle has been set out in Section 102 of the Evidence Act which reads as follows:
