8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has filed written arguments. The coverage of the respondents company was fixed based on the inspection made by the authorities. The order dated 03.03.2000 was passed under Section 45 of the E.S.I.Act, after inspection by the competent authorities and the visit note also countersigned by the authorized persons of the respondent. As per the report more than 28 workers had not been covered for the period from December 1996 to March 1999. Therefore, notice was issued for contribution of Rs.3,51,872/-. The employer appeared for personal hearing on 23.11.1999 and submitted letters. After considering the letters only the authorities have passed a speaking order. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that no opportunity was given is false. Non mentioning of father's name, wages, length of service etc, in the visit note by the Inspecting Officer has been alleged as a ground for set aside the order, but in fact, the Inspector, who enters the premises of any employer, has to fact hostile atmosphere and thereby the employees also refuse to give necessary information to the